MILLIYET- Columnist Fikret Bila writes on the discussions over the death penalty and the reasons put forth by the sides. A summary of his column is as follows:
Turkey is discussing the abolition of death penalty in line with the program presented to the European Union. In fact, the discussions are not over death penalty itself, but the sentence passed on terrorist chieftain Ocalan. If Ocalan had not received capital punishment, discussions would not have been as heated as it is today. Turkey did not execute death penalty since 1984. There seems to be a tendency in society towards the abolition of the capital punishment. However, Ocalan and his terrorist attacks hinder Turkey to take it completely out of the legal system. We can also say that the determining factors in the policies of the political parties are Ocalan and the PKK terrorist organization’s activities. There is no party defending the death penalty in the process of becoming a member to the EU. The parties opposing the abolition of the penalty are not against the canceling of the sentence but rather the sentence passed on Ocalan. They are afraid of being a party annulling the punishment of Ocalan. It goes without mention that the Nationalist Action Party (MHP) has a special place in these discussions due to its ideology and grassroots. It is not realistic to expect the MHP, which owes its success in 1999 to its opposition to the PKK, to support the canceling of the death penalty which will benefit Ocalan. True Path Party (DYP) follows a similar line as the main opposition party. It is difficult for parties of the left and the right to approve an arrangement which would lead to the lifting of Ocalan’s sentence. That is why a search for a middle path should be received with understanding. It is not realistic to expect a decision for the abolition of the sentence passed on Ocalan in a country which has suffered the loss of 30,000 lives in 20 years due to his actions. While waiting for Turkey to complete her homework, Europe should take these facts into consideration. However, it would not be correct to expect such an understanding.
SOURCE: OFFICE OF THE PRIME MINISTER, DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF PRESS AND INFORMATION