 The Implications of Turkey’s Constitutional Court Decision on the Justice and Development Party (AKP) On August 6, the Center on the United States and Europe at Brookings hosted Cagri Erhan, the vice president of the Center for European Strategic Studies, a non-profit think tank based in Ankara, Ibrahim Kalin, founding director of the SETA Foundation for Political, Economic, and Social Research in Ankara, and Murat Yetkin who is a senior columnist and Ankara bureau chief for Radikal, a leading Turkish newspaper published in Istanbul. The panelists discussed the court's July 30, 2008 ruling that struck down an attempt to outlaw the Justice and Development Party (AKP). This court case had been described by international media as a battle between the secular and devout sides of Turkey's national "soul." Discussants focused on what does the decision imply for the future in terms of Turkey's political stability, economic prospects and emergent regional diplomatic clout, and what roles have the U.S. and Europe played in the outcome. Moderated by Mark Parris --- former Ambassador to Turkey; a career foreign service officer including posts in the Soviet Union, Israel and Portugal; a policy advisor for the U.S. State Department and National Security Council; and currently directing the "Turkey 2007" project at Brookings --- these experts on Turkish politics and society shared their impressions of the initial impact in Turkey of the court's historic ruling, a sense of where the country may be going in the period ahead, and thoughts on what the ruling may mean for Turkey's relations with the United States and Europe. When asked about what the motive was behind the case and the reasons why the AKP was not banned from politics, Ebrahim Kalin stated that this was not a battle for the soul of Turkey between secularists and Islamists, but that it was a judicial political process between reformists and the establishment. According to him, the judiciary committee did not go for the "final kill" because they believed that the AKP would come back under another name and under either the same leader or another one. Cagri Erhan responded by affirming that the process that brought said court decision was a perfectly legitimate one yet that the judges believed that the constitution should make it harder to ban a whole political party. He observed that this decision had both satisfied and unsatisfied the AK and opposition parties. It satisfied the AK party in that the party was allowed to participate in the political process but it was unsatisfied in that it lost half of its funding and half of its reputation while the opposition party was satisfied in that the court charged the AKP in attempting to further the anti-secular cause but was unsatisfied in that it could not eliminate its competition. Murat Yetkin quelled conspiracy theories of military interference in the court decision and Erhan confirmed him by adding that the Turkish military did a good job in upholding the democratic process by not interfering in this court decision. He believed that this was due to the Turkish military trying to save face with the EU as part of an expanded effort to enlist the Turkish nation as a full member. Kalin stated that it may not have been in the militaries interests to ban the AKP from politics because recently they have begun to meet eye to eye on many key issues such as the Kurdish and Cyprus issues. All the panelists reached a consensus in that the Turkish Prime Minister , Tayyip Erdogan, now has to watch his step on many key issues. Kalin maintained that Erdogan would not be able to complete his agenda if he did not touch on a few of the disputed issues, such as the headscarf issue. Erhan was more concerned about other issues and believed that the headscarf issue and other issues considered to be religious to many should be put aside until the more important issues were solved. Since lifting the headscarf ban in universities has been shut down twice so far, it would probably be best to prioritize the administrations endeavors. One of the issues that came up many times in the discussion was that of either editing the constitution or writing a new one. The current Turkish Constitution has been changed many times and is believed to change again in regards to banning political parties. All three panelists believe that something more permanent should be done about the constitution and that it should go in a more democratic direction. Such a change could make it easier to free up court time, make decisions, and pass legislation on many of the disputed issues. *Emaun Kashfipour is Euclid's summer intern and research assistant to Pr. Vince Sinning. He is a senior student at Alim Preparatory Academy of the Muslim Community School in Potomac, MD. |