MILLIYET- Columnist Fikret Bila comments on Justice and Development Party (AKP) leader Tayyip Erdogan’s situation in relation to recent court rulings. A summary of his column is as follows:
The Supreme Election Board will issue its final decision today as to whether Justice and Development Party (AKP) leader Tayyip Erdogan will be able to stand as a candidate for deputy. On this issue, wishes and reality are being confused by media and political observers. As part of this confusion, certain politicians (particularly Erdogan himself) and newspaper columnists are criticizing in a misinformed way the decision given by the Eighth Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals. The upshot of this decision is that Erdogan cannot become a deputy.
You can criticize the decision politically or call it incompatible with democracy and European Union standards. You can argue that whatever a person’s crime, his right to run for elected office shouldn’t be taken away. However, you can’t justifiably call the decision handed down by the appeals court a political one. You cannot say that this decision violates the Constitution, the relevant election law or the general principles and specifics of the law. The reason is simple: Article 76 of the Constitution and Article 11 of the Deputies Election Law prohibit Erdogan and people in similar situations from becoming deputies. As long as these sections of the Constitution and the law remain in force, the judiciary’s hands are tied. However, if the Article 76 and the Article 11 were amended, the result could be different.
When the Turkish Penal Code (TCK), under which Erdogan was sentenced, was changed, the Constitution and the Deputy Election Law were left unchanged. Was this forgetfulness? Of course not. The legislature maintained these judgments on purpose. The legislature’s relevant judgment asserts that those sentenced under Article 312 cannot become deputies. Their civil and other political rights can be given back, but they don’t have permission to become deputies. This is the command of the legislature.
When faced with this situation, the judiciary has to make such a decision because it issues rulings according to the current law, not according to someone’s wishes. Therefore it’s wrong to try to tar defenders of the decision against Erdogan as ‘against the EU’ and ‘enemies of democracy.’ Just because Erdogan leads the front-running party in the opinion polls doesn’t put him above the law. The Constitutional Court’s ruling on Erdogan’s founding membership and the appeals court decision concerning his prospective candidacy are binding on every person and every institution. This includes the Supreme Election Board.
SOURCE: OFFICE OF THE PRIME MINISTER, DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF PRESS AND INFORMATION