CUMHURIYET- Columnist Mustafa Balbay comments on relationship between politics and the law. A summary of his column is as follows:
Here are my initial thoughts concerning the legal action seeking the closure of the Justice and Development Party (AKP). The situation is quite clear, but let’s summarize it thusly:
1. Just after the AKP was established, the High Court of Appeals’ chief prosecutor applied to the Constitutional Court, arguing, ‘The newly established AKP’s leader, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, is a person who was sentenced under Turkish Penal Code [TCK] Article 312. According to the laws in force, a person who was sentenced under this article cannot be a founding member or leader of a party. Do what is necessary.’
2. The Constitutional Court evaluated the situation immediately and made the following decision on April 19: The application of the High Court of Appeals chief prosecutor is correct. It’s not right for him to be a founding member. This situation must be rectified within six months.
3. On Oct. 19 this six-month period granted to the AKP came to an end, during which time its administrators hashed out the issue in detail. One of the opinions expressed was, ‘We’re moving towards winning power, let’s not face off with the judiciary. Let Erdogan resign from his posts as founding member and leader. If necessary, we can eventually convene a general assembly and re-elect him leader, or another of our allies can take up this duty.’ But others replied, ‘No, this would be unnecessary. Let him resign only from his post as founding member. If he quits his post as leader, our rise to the top would be threatened.
4. In the end, the second opinion won out. The AKP’s decision was conveyed to the office of the chief prosecutor two days ago. The chief prosecutor had two alternatives: Would he make his decision according to the person, or according to the law? He chose the second alternative. He reasoned that the laws should be applicable to everybody and that one cannot talk about the ‘rule of law’ if the laws bend according to the person concerned.
5. There will be various responses towards this initiative. Expect to hear this a lot: - Democracy in Turkey has yet to be settled. Are we going to join the European Union with such a democracy? We sincerely hope that there won’t be any party closure filings in this country and that our political parties, which are an indispensable element of democracy, take firm root. Who bears the greatest responsibility for making this a reality? The political parties… If politicians treat the parties with favoritism, will it ever end?
6. Let’s recall three well-known examples from Europe: - The racist leader in Austria proved incapable of being elected as prime minister as a result of pressure from its fellow EU countries. - The Basque party Batasuna in Spain was closed by that country’s Constitutional Court, as it failed to condemn an ETA attack which left two people dead. - Britain’s Northern Ireland Parliament was suspended for not taking the necessary measures against an espionage scandal.
There is a lesson that we should take from these examples: Democracy is a regime of rules. If you interpret the rules however you see fit, or make any decision you want, other parties will make up their own rules, and this can hardly be called a democracy.
7. There will be elections on Nov. 3. Two important parties participating in the elections, the AKP and the Democratic People Party (DEHAP), are at odds with the law. If a party runs the risk of violating the law, that means that it’s lost control. The AKP has described the True Path Party (DYP) as ‘adventurous,’ the Motherland Party (ANAP) as ‘dark,’ and the Democratic Left Party (DSP) as ‘a threat to the regime.’ If these harsh descriptions aren’t mere ploys to get more votes, all the parties should defend ‘democracy based on the law’ and condemn tricks against the law. What we see now is a political test of the law.
SOURCE: OFFICE OF THE PRIME MINISTER, DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF PRESS AND INFORMATION