BY ISMET BERKAN
RADIKAL- If the calls being made for common sense get results, and if main opposition Republican People's Party (CHP) leader Deniz Baykal strikes a deal and the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) thereby escapes from the closure case against it, this would be good. Otherwise, what will happen? What would happen if the AKP found itself alone in pushing constitutional changes that would make its own closure more difficult? In this bad-case scenario, it seems the AKP would have two alternatives: push through a constitutional amendment anyhow and hold a referendum, or give up the amendment and defend itself in court. Both situations would set off a period of conflict and struggle for the AKP.
Let's start with the first alternative. With a constitutional amendment to rescue itself from closure and a referendum on it, the AKP would argue that it has no problem with secularism and the case against it damages democracy. Of course, opposite views would be expressed during campaigning over the referendum. We already know what the CHP would say: `This referendum isn't about whether the AKP will be saved or not, but whether our country will remain secular or not.'
During this campaigning, obviously, Turkey would be in a period of high tension, polarization and antagonism. If this coincides with economic problems, the government would argue, `See? These people ruined our stability.' Then the CHP would say that Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan is responsible for the confusion and economic problems. In short, we're heading towards hard times.
What would happen if the AKP goes for the second alternative? To begin with, this is very unlikely. Reporters and newspaper columnists close to the government say that it will choose to go to a referendum. But it still could choose the second alternative, although the probability is low. If this happens, the AKP would argue its case using such concepts as secularism and freedom of expression. The party and Erdogan would make the same argument to the public. In other words, the AKP would defend itself not only in court, but also to the public and try to convince at least five judges and the general public that it's innocent and its enemies have bad intentions.
The advantage of this approach is that public debate wouldn't be as harsh and maybe the opposition would even be silent. There would be less tension and antagonism compared to a referendum. But this path involves a serious risk. The party might be closed despite its defense, resulting in scores of leading politicians being banned from politics for five years, and the upsetting of the national atmosphere.
Obviously it's due to this risk that the AKP doesn't favor this alternative. But think of it this way: If a part which makes a proper defense of democracy in the next 6-8 months and also puts forth a consistent democratization program that few would object to and convinces the public that it's loyal to secularism, it this party is closed, would it be seen as the loser? Forget about the party; in this case, would Turkey itself have lost or won?
Also don't forget this: The heart of the case against the AKP isn't secularism, but the limits of freedom of expression. As I have said before, if a party uses says words which don't constitute a crime when an ordinary person says them, and then it's closed, is this fair?