Today’s Zaman, Turkey
Jan 3 2014
Judiciary is like salt; it should not go bad
MARKAR ESAYAN
[email protected]
The Justice and Development Party (AK Party) administration, which
came to power after the Nov. 3 general elections, has been motivated
to eliminate the state mindset that was monolithic and discriminative
against Kurds and other minorities, over the past 11 years.
The AK Party, by sometimes taking radical or symbolic steps, distanced
itself from the single-party regime and Kemalist Turkey. However, it
cannot be said that the impacts of Kemalist popular engineering were
totally addressed by the process of democratization that religious
circles initiated in 2002. Such an expectation would be naïve, anyway.
In a speech he delivered in November 2008, then-Defense Minister Vecdi
Gönül said: `Would there be the same nation state in Turkey if the
Greeks were dominant in the Aegean region and Armenians in different
parts of the country?’
This shows that this monolithic mindset was widely held in the state.
Besides, while the government was trying to address the issue of this
mindset, parties like the Republican People’s Party (CHP) subscribed
to it. It is not easy to disconnect with the past on an emotional
level. For this reason, instead of using criticisms as political
opposition tools, it is an ethical obligation to include ourselves in
the criticisms.
The AK Party movement, by going through a process of self-criticism
and by altering its National Outlook approach after the Feb. 28, 1997
postmodern coup, realized that it needed to distance itself from the
former state ideology via a paradigm change. The common sense of
victimization that was felt by different religious circles because of
single-party and Kemalist practices was particularly influential in
this transformation. It was observed that not just religious groups
but also minorities, Alevis and Kurds were victimized by state
policies and that the source of the real problem was the state itself.
This accelerated detachment from the pro-statist and status quo
mindset. Nationalism became less significant; citizenship based on the
principle of equality was assured in a modern and civilian
Constitution.
Breakdown in the secular approach
This also led to some sort of breakdown amongst the secularists in
their approach vis-à-vis the religious circles; as a result, at least
part of these groups paid attention to the victimization religious
circles experienced during the postmodern coup era. This is one of the
major reasons for the support of the first two terms of ruling AK
Party governments by liberals, the pro-freedom left and democrats. The
religious groups, secular liberals and democrat leftists, as well as
the democrats, acted together and agreed on the same roadmap. However,
this cooperation should have been based on a real facing of the truth
rather than conjectural or temporary alliances. During the Gezi
events, a serious situation of alienation took place over the issue of
headscarved women. Religious groups seemed readier to make a fresh
start with Atatürkist circles, whereas harshly secular segments were
still relying on an exclusionary and arrogant approach.
It seems that Turkey has entered a new phase in this process of
change. We are at the crossroads of abandoning an ancient tradition,
in terms of purifying ourselves from political engineering and
completing civilianization. It is essential to protect the political
establishment; this should be our common denominator. Politics is like
an oxygen tent where all civilian solutions could come to life. But we
all are responsible for the protection of this and of making sure that
it serves as an environment where all can breathe. Therefore, how the
turmoil associated with the recent corruption probe in Turkey would be
administered, how it should be responded to and how only political
solutions should be considered is extremely important.
As far as I can tell, nobody supports corruption. Corruption bothers
the people; nobody likes it. However, it is a constant issue in all
societies in the world because of human nature. Being party to this
crisis in such a way as to destroy the political balance obscures
healthy discussion and investigation into these allegations. This
raises serious concerns among the people and leads to suspicion that
this is actually a move to redesign the political stage under the
disguise of corruption. If corruption is really considered important,
those creating an alliance against the government should reconsider.
Corruption is a problem. However, causing serious damage to the
political system and the economy to resolve this problem is not
helpful. The government has a duty to deal with corruption. If the
people are not convinced on this matter, the government would pay the
price for it. However, the opposition is also responsible for not
abusing corruption charges for political leverage. Of course, the
opposition is entitled to using these allegations against the
government. However, if this is done in the form of an alliance or an
operation involving the judiciary, this implies that the sanctity of
politics is being violated. In this case, the government has a right
to protect itself. And if there is a political establishment within
the police and the judiciary, this refers to a de facto coup. At this
stage, the people would consider this manipulation a more serious
threat rather than the corruption charges.
Now Turkey is at this stage. There is general conviction that the
political order and the popular will, as reflected by the ballot box,
is being violated by non-political methods. It can be said that the
Hizmet movement was tested in this matter. In my previous column, I
said we are responsible for how we are being perceived as well. The
media branches of the Hizmet community give the impression that they
are speakers and protectors of the prosecutors. Criticizing the
government on political matters is different from giving the
impression that you are waging a war. The situation becomes even more
problematic in social media. It is a problem to treat every allegation
as if it is proven fact. That the economic losses associated with the
recent turmoil are greater than the corrupt money shows that the
situation is getting out of hand.
Corruption or any other administration issue may weaken the
government. However, a government should be removed only by elections.
The discourse suggesting that democracy is not all about elections is
flawed. The ballot box is the most important tool to uphold democracy.
Governments pay the price for their actions in the elections. Crimes
are committed by individuals. If the people believe that the
government is responsible for these individual crimes, then the
government pays for it during elections. At that stage, the judiciary
cannot serve as a medium of political change.
The government may protect itself by adopting a more serious approach
vis-à-vis the corruption allegations; the Hizmet movement may protect
itself by distancing itself from the judicial operation. Beyond this,
the ongoing situation is turning into a loss-loss game.
http://www.todayszaman.com/columnist/markar-esayan_335697_judiciary-is-like-salt-it-should-not-go-bad.html