The time spent there will make it possible to have a clearer view about what is going right in the country and what is going wrong. Politicians will have learned how to grit their teeth -- again! The result: a pro-active opposition ready to return to governance when the time has come. I do not believe in "leadership forever" and would love to hear from Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who apparently aims at re-inventing North Korea's one-man-dynasty model, why he thinks that this is the best solution for his nation. Or is it perhaps simply the best solution for himself?
This week's topic is main opposition Republican People's Party (CHP) leader Deniz Baykal's visit to the administrative and executive headquarters of the European Union in Brussels. Long overdue, this visit perhaps did not convince all the Eurocrats about his party' s change in tone and direction as far as fast-tracking Turkey's EU accession efforts is concerned. We will not see the blue and yellow EU flag flying from the CHP's party buildings as of yet. Changes in and of politics take a long time in this proud country and if Brussels downplays Mr. Baykal's trip, it will not be helping anyone involved in working to prepare for a smooth accession. Similarly, Mr. Baykal should not complain that Brussels did not understand him. It is like family members who have not seen each other for a long time: A lot of emotional and, in our case, political homework needs to be done first.
Mr. Baykal's CHP, although significantly steering away from a core socialist or even core social-democratic course -- measured by recent statements and comments attributed to the party and its representatives -- is still a member of the international socialist network. In more general terms, "leftist" parties in Europe were always more skeptical about the EU and rather pushed for international solidarity with countries far away instead of focusing on issues closer to home. Many European socialists preferred a structure like that of the Council of Europe for the emerging European Union, rather than an ever-closer union. The Council of Europe, which was founded in 1949, was all about solving the East-West conflict and discussing and guaranteeing human rights. Later it added social matters to its agenda. The EU of 12 in 1986, for example, was seen as attempting to safeguard economic liberties and a free internal market, both issues the "left" feels quite uncomfortable with. Hence Brussels must pay respect to this dimension when judging today's CHP's policies toward the EU.
Analyzing certain present-day issues, the CHP must be compared to fellow European parties on the left that likewise do not embrace the positive effects of globalization. The US mortgage crisis did not happen because of globalization, nor did a French bank collapse because trade had become borderless. However, over time the term socialist very often transforms itself into social democratic and then becomes much more of a viable "people's party" alternative to a liberal or center-right government in most countries. Then the pendulum of power I mentioned in my introductory paragraph can swing both ways, at which point a country has reached relatively permanent stability.
Opening an office in Brussels is a wise move. Getting to know Brussels and how it works as a community of 27 is a necessity. Turkey cannot join the EU if its main opposition party constantly puts roadblocks on the path toward full membership. Brussels must explain the benefits of membership to the CHP, too.
There is, however, one dark cloud casting an even darker shadow over the in-principle positive attempt by Mr. Baykal to woo Brussels. Even assuming that the past is the past and that policies may change, there is a constant threat to the completion of Turkey's reform process, which began some years ago. I am talking about the urgent need for a civilian constitution.
States must sometimes align constitutional provisions with changing realities in the country and society, as well as taking the outside world into account -- but from time to time only, as a constitution is a civic achievement, not a political instrument for tactical maneuvers. However, all this can only happen once there is a broad consensus within society. Although a constitution must be written by independent experts, they all must adhere to the strictest principles of defending democracy and the rights of the individual. In other words, a constitution is a manifestation of the sovereignty of its people. Of course, out of this strength a nation-state may derive its own sovereignty in relation to other nation-states. Some logical limitations apply (please refer back to my comment about Venezuela): for example, a maximum number of terms in office granted to a president, a minimum age required to become a prime minister and so on and so forth.
A true opposition will accept the rules of the game -- democracy -- by putting forth alternative policy scenarios. Blocking the way toward a civilian constitution should not form part of this exercise!
