As a result, a new judicial opinion, to determine the borders of freedom of speech and of organization, in addition to the relation between law and politics, will be formed. This judicial opinion will be meaningful if it is formed in compliance with European Union criteria and modern democratic interpretations, and a contrary decision would be an historic one. I'm not belittling economic and political stability, however, I believe that it is more important for Turkey to define its route on a foundation of law and democracy. I want to be so optimistic as to believe that the closure decisions made about the Welfare Party (RP) and Virtue Party (FP) at times of an interim regime cannot form a measure. The decisions that would prove my expectation to be correct are present in the court archives, like the decision the Constitutional Court gave about Ali Haydar Veziroğlu's Democratic Peace Movement Party: "Under Article 10 and Article 11 of the European Human Rights Bill, which are in harmony with Article 13 of the Turkish Constitution, the closure case opened against the Democratic Peace Movement Party, which has been involved in no activity other than expressing its thoughts without resorting to violence, should be rejected." The pessimistic scenario involves the court's ruling in this direction by accepting the indictment. This move would cause political turmoil, with the conviction of the president and the prime minister, and it would not be internalized by all. The most plausible alternative is the court's returning the indictment, citing as its reason the section in which the president is accused. While Article 105 of the Constitution makes the president accountable for irresponsible behavior, it doesn't introduce any limits or definitions. The president can be accused only of treason and only by approval of three-quarters of Parliament. The president is already outside political bounds. Even if he gets a sentence at the end of the trial, that would not constitute a reason to prevent him from continuing his duty and being elected a second time. So what is the point in wearing out the post that represents the state's integrity? The justices may reject the indictment, most probably due to the reason we have cited. This situation should not push the AK Party toward slackness, since such a decision will not mean that the case cannot be reopened. The chief prosecutor will probably fix the indictment and resubmit it. And in the meantime, let me point out a frequent mistake. People claim that "the closure case had actually been filed by the previous chief prosecutor -- however, they were gathering evidence." According to Article 10 of the Political Parties Law, a file on every party is held by the Chief Prosecutor's Office. This office monitors and inspects parties by means of these files.
While the Chief Prosecutor's Office renews its request, the AK Party could do two things. The first could be a tactical step, demanding that the Republican People's Party (CHP) be closed. Zaman published a news article on Wednesday reporting that the CHP had committed, plenty of times, the same crimes attributed to the AK Party. Just as the chief prosecutor can file a closure case without prior consultation with any authority, according to Article 10 of the Political Parties Law, it can be filed with a Ministerial Board decision, by the Justice Ministry or upon the demand of a political party. In the event of rejection by the chief prosecutor, the case can be referred to the Political Party Closures Inspection Board. If this board, which consists of the presidents of the criminal courts under the Supreme Court of Appeals, finds the demand suitable, the chief prosecutor is obliged to file the case with the Constitutional Court. In the worst case scenario, both the rejection decisions could be used in the defense during the trial.
What the AK Party must essentially do is clear all the anti-democratic elements from the Political Parties Law and the Constitution in a major democratization package. It would not be moral to amend only those concerning the AK Party and furthermore, such a unilateral step could be used against it strategically. This case should be turned into an opportunity to eradicate all the obstacles before the freedoms of thought, expression and organization. Maneuvers for winning daily fronts would damage the democratization quest of Turkey as well as the AK Party.
