The Economist - a narrow escape for (so called) democracy

Turkey

A narrow scrape for democracy

Jul 31st 2008 | ANKARA
From The Economist print edition

The judiciary shrinks from banning the ruling party

AFP

BY THE slimmest of margins, Turkey has averted the worst political crisis in years, perhaps in decades. On July 30th the country’s constitutional court turned down an attempt by state prosecutors to ban the ruling Justice and Development (AK) Party on the ground that it was seeking to introduce elements of Islamic law in defiance of the state’s avowed secularism.

A majority of six of the 11 constitutional court’s judges had, in fact, voted to shut down the party. But to pass such a measure required the support of seven judges, so the court settled on the minority view of four others—including the chairman, Hasim Kilic—only to impose a fine. This is expected to be the loss of half of AK’s state funding, which amounted to 47m Turkish lira ($40m) last year.

“We think that this political party should take the necessary message from this verdict,” said Mr Kilic, his voice tight with emotion. In parliament, AK deputies embraced and clapped as they watched the judge’s televised press conference. The European Union’s enlargement commissioner, Olli Rehn, called it “a good day for Turkey and for Europe”.

The verdict should help end the political upheaval that has gripped Turkey since March, when the chief prosecutor asked the court to bar the prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan; the president, Abdullah Gul; and scores of other named officials from politics for five years. They were accused of undermining the secular republic created by Kemal Ataturk 85 years ago out of the ruins of the Ottoman empire.

To many, the prosecution was an attempt at “a judicial coup”—perhaps the most serious assault on Turkey’s turbulent democracy since the army seized power from elected politicians in 1980. Despite the subsequent restoration of democracy, the army demanded, and obtained, the resignation of an Islamist-tinged prime minister, Necmettin Erbakan, in 1997.

The army’s hand has been apparent in the latest manoeuvring against AK. But this time Turkey’s meddlesome generals have been humiliated. Despite their displeasure AK was re-elected with an enhanced majority in 2007. The army failed to block the appointment of Mr Gul as president, despite an internet message that appeared to threaten military intervention. Short of such a hard coup, the army has no cards left to play.

That said, the court’s decision is not an outright victory for AK, despite its supporters’ excited chants of “we will continue”. Ten of the constitutional court’s judges agreed that the party was guilty of anti-secular activity; they disagreed only on the punishment.

The verdict should be seen as a stern warning to the party not to push its divisive religious agenda. Earlier this year the party forced through a law allowing girls to wear the Islamic headscarf at university, which was later struck down by the constitutional court. Secular Turks view the headscarf as a symbol of Islamic militancy. Even Mr Erdogan’s allies agree that he should have done more to appease the concerns of secularists.

Within hours of the court’s verdict, Mr Erdogan spoke of the need to strengthen unity and promised to abide by Ataturk’s principles. “The AK party, which has never been a focus for anti-secular activities, will continue to stand up for the fundamental values of the republic,” he said. He also declared that his government would henceforth pursue full membership of the EU. Critics point out that he made the same promises on the night of his electoral victory last year. Having outmanoeuvred the generals yet again, will he abide by his pledges this time?

Sources close to the prime minister maintain that he will. A key test will be whether he reshuffles the cabinet. A first step, say secularists, would be get rid of the controversial education minister, Huseyin Celik, who is accused of seeking to inject Islam into school textbooks and who was among the 70 AK officials for whom the chief prosecutor had sought bans. An even greater test will be whether Mr Erdogan consults the opposition in any future effort to rewrite the constitution, an authoritarian document drawn up by the generals after the 1980 coup.

It will take some time for the country fully to absorb the meaning of this week’s verdict. Until recently it seemed virtually certain that the court would rule against AK. But opinion began to shift over the past month as the potentially disastrous effects of a ban finally seemed to sink in among those pushing for it.

The European Commission had threatened to suspend Turkey’s accession talks had AK been shut down. America made its displeasure known, albeit more mildly. The global credit crunch, moreover, has hit emerging markets. Turkey, with its enormous current account deficit, looks more vulnerable than most.

So for more than one reason, Mr Erdogan has much to gain by focusing on pushing the liberal political and economic reforms that marked his earlier years in office. Mr Rehn said Turkey should now seek to regain the time wasted by the crisis, and “resume with full energy its reforms to modernise the country”.

Some believe the judges’ change of heart may be linked to another, equally sensational, case that has been launched against the so-called Ergenekon conspirators. Prosecutors in Istanbul claim to have uncovered a plot by a group of ultranationalists—among them retired generals, convicted murderers, pro-secular journalists and academics—to overthrow AK, which draws its support from a rising class of pious Turks and frightens many secular ones.

Some 80 alleged conspirators have been arrested. Their purported plan was to incite chaos through a string of assassinations and bomb attacks designed to provoke the army to intervene. There is widespread speculation that Ergenekon may have been behind this week’s bomb attack in Istanbul that killed 17 people, including five children and a pregnant women. But security officials say this was more likely the work of separatist Kurdish guerrillas of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party. Either way the incident was a chilling reminder of the potential turmoil that could arise from the lack of a stable government.

The biggest reason for the court’s decision may be rooted in hard parliamentary arithmetic. Even if AK had been shut down and its leading members banned, some 300 of its deputies would have retained their seats as independents, regrouped under a new name and formed a new government alone. Recent opinion polls consistently suggest that AK retains a big lead over its secular rivals.

Hopes within pro-secular circles that the threat of closure would prompt mass defections from the party never materialised. “The secularists appear to have finally grasped that the only way to get rid of the AK is at the ballot box,” notes an European diplomat. If so, that is a huge step forward for Turkish democracy.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~