It is evident that there is a “deep” group of party members who are equally busy trying to make the closure a reality. Nevertheless, would closing down such a party be a solution? Of course not. When a party which relies on ethnic nationalism as its raison d’être and which is losing support each day is victimized, this may bring it some additional support in the short term. But this support will be temporary. There will be nothing more to it. In politics, it is essential that a political party should resist until the end and respect democracy and the rule of law in doing so. This is a difficult test. Those who do not have faith in democracy may resort to other means. Still, party closures are no solution -- of course, unless the party in question indulges in terrorism.The judiciary gives the impression of being painstakingly cautious about the DTP, but why are they so silent about other parties that display characteristics similar to the DTP’s? Take the party led by Doğu Perinçek. Why have they not initiated proceedings against it? If closing down a party is a necessary outcome of a legal procedure, then why does Supreme Court of Appeals Chief Prosecutor Abdurrahman Yalçınkaya refrain from investigating the Workers’ Party (İP)? Moreover, the İP is accused of being a terrorist organization. The leader of the party has been under arrest for about a year on charges of being a senior executive in the Ergenekon terrorist organization. The secretary-general of the party is under arrest, the officials in charge of a periodical that serves as the party’s mouthpiece are under arrest and the officials in charge of a TV channel that is another mouthpiece of the party are also under arrest. While many party officials are being tried on charges of membership in a terrorist organization, how is it that no closure case has been brought against the party? If you do not launch a closure case against the İP, won’t people inquire about the rationale behind launching one against the DTP?
Moreover, there is also a very critical point. According to the claims voiced by several papers, the indictment in the closure case against the ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party) has been found on a computer in the İP’s headquarters. It has been claimed that members of the Judges and Prosecutors Association (YARSAV) had been involved in the process of drafting the indictment and that the closure case against the AK Party had been tailored by the İP. If this is the case, then not launching a closure case against the İP might be interpreted differently. It is hard to believe that there might be such “collaboration,” but it is possible to discuss double standards even in the most optimistic analyses.
These double standards also apply to the attitudes toward the AK Party and the Republican People’s Party (CHP). Whatever was regarded as a cause for closure in the case against the AK Party is treated as a cause for praise for the CHP. Can laws be applied differently depending on the person or organization? It seems they can. When an act is committed by a particular person, it is deemed to be an offense. But when the same act is committed by another person, no mention of offense or offender is made.
If it were the AK Party, and not the CHP, that promised voters to open Quran courses in every neighborhood, would Mr. Prosecutor still be indifferent to it? If it were Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, and not Deniz Baykal who met with women in chador to give them party badges, would the judiciary still be silent about it? If the AK Party had organized a “religious order ceremony” just like the CHP to nominate members of the Kadiri religious order, would the prosecutor’s office still choose not to act? If a headscarved woman had applied to the AK Party, and not the CHP, for nomination for a city council, would the judiciary still keep its mouth tightly shut?
Please do not get me wrong. I am not suggesting that parties should be closed. For instance, there is no need to shut down the İP; it is already a marginal party that cannot secure even 0.3 percent electoral support. As for the DTP, it is already losing its support as long as it does not democratize its discourse within the limits of democracy. No one would normally suggest their closure. However, this is still a question that has been weighing on the collective consciousness: Why is the chief prosecutor of the Supreme Court of Appeals still dead silent about certain parties while he splits hairs in an attempt to close down other parties? If people develop the opinion that there are double standards in the judiciary, then all the decisions of the judiciary would be controversial and in doubt. The members of YARSAV, especially its chairman, have already reinforced doubts about the existence of an ideological grouping in the judiciary. Then, there is only one remedy: to implement judicial reform and protect the political preferences of the nation from ideological impositions.
