Nevertheless, commentators see the court's ruling as very unlikely to serve such a purpose because the filing of the closure case, developments that triggered it and the final court verdict are full of controversy and have the potential to produce even more. Star's Mustafa Karaalioğlu thinks it is unlikely for the Constitutional Court's ruling to bring reconciliation and harmony among conflicting groups, noting that it is actually not the duty of the court to serve such a purpose. Nevertheless, the fact that 10 out of 11 members of the court agreed to a certain extent that the AK Party was "a focal point of anti-secular activities," in his view, seems to be the reference of upcoming tension in Turkish politics. For those who call for reconciliation in the new period, Karaalioğlu says they should give some clues about how such reconciliation could be reached. "Will the reconciliation they talk about be reached by moving away from the EU path, by running away from a new constitution and by giving up from a crackdown on the Ergenekon gang, a crime network? Someone should come and explain this," he says, voicing skepticism over the intentions of those who call for reconciliation.
Hürriyet's Cüneyt Ülsever thinks the Constitutional Court engaged in a kind of highballing by scaring the AK Party with the possibility of closure and then by not closing it, it prevented the party from making any fuss about the closure case. He also thinks the court ruling will not bring an end to the ongoing political polarization in Turkey. "Consensus is yet to be reached in the war that goes on between conservatives and secular republicans in economic, social and political arenas. While one side continues to ask for a larger share, the other side strives not to make any concession from its own share," he suggests.
Sabah daily's Emre Aköz agrees with Ülsever in that the Constitutional Court engaged in a sort of highballing with its verdict in the AK Party closure case, making everyone forget how it acted unconstitutionally when it annulled a constitutional amendment that received the support of half of Parliament and that would have lifted a long-standing ban on wearing headscarves at universities. "That ruling was against the Constitution, against democracy and against the republic," says Aköz. "It was against the Constitution because the Constitutional Court may only examine constitutional amendments on procedural grounds and cannot examine their content. The court apparently violated this principle. It was against democracy because democracy is a regime of rights and freedoms. The court seized the rights of covered girls to study at universities. It was against democracy because the court violated the principle of the separation of powers, which is the most fundamental principle of the republic. It was against the republic because it exceeded its authority by interfering in the authority of the legislative power," explains Aköz.
