It seems to me there are lots of rumors and misconceptions surrounding the passage of this law, which is in line with European Union requirements stipulating limited military power in running the country's affairs. After sitting down for an extensive talk with both Ahmet İyimaya, the chairman of the Justice Commission in Parliament, and Bekir Bozdağ, the deputy head of the parliamentary group of the Justice and Development Party (AK Party), I was able to get rid of distorted lines on the fuzzy display of events with the help of these two deputies who were pivotal in piecing this legislation together.Right off the bat, I must say that the passage of laws in the late night hours is very common in the Turkish Parliament, whose floor is open from 3 p.m. to 7 p.m. on a regular schedule. It was not unique to this military legislation. Moreover, in many cases the Parliament, which starts working in the late afternoon, often finds itself pressed for time with the working agenda, pushing most legislative debates into the late night hours. Hence it was not unusual at all to pass the law at 1:30 a.m. on June 26.
There were no extraordinary circumstances surrounding the passage of the law as the record shows all the rules and regulations governing the operation of the legislative body were complied with fully and completely. Opposition party leaders were given ample time to reflect and talk about the proposed changes, and they agreed on the wording and sentence layout before the draft was presented to the general assembly for the vote.
In the vote tally, it shows nobody cast a ballot against the proposition. Both opposition party deputies supported the draft and played a part in passing the legislation. After all, the substance of the law works in favor of civilian democracy and fine tunes the judiciary towards a much better democratic system.
Bozdağ explained that the new law actually delineates the role of the judiciary vis-à-vis the military in a much clearer way. He also dismissed the accusations that the ruling AK Party proposed the law to influence the ongoing Ergenekon trial -- the trial of a clandestine criminal network charged with plotting to topple the democratically elected government in Turkey. “Even without this new law, civilian prosecutors can easily charge any military officers if they suspect they [the officers] are involved in illegal affairs which are outside the scope of the military justice system,” he said.
In fact he is right, as Col. Dursun Çiçek, whose signature appeared on the document allegedly prepared by groups within the military outlining a vicious scheme to finish off the AK Party, was on active duty when he was charged, arrested and later released based on the law already in effect without the need of invoking the newly passed legislation. What this new law did was actually name the major offenses for which civilian prosecutors are obligated to open cases against military officers.
Another misconception held by some commentators is that with this new law military officers can be dragged into court based on citizens' complaints and without the presumption of innocence, unlike civil servants whose trials require permission from their superiors. İyimaya argues this is far from true. First of all, permission to try civil servants, or military officers for that matter, only requires authorization from superiors if the alleged crime happens to fall under the official role he or she is assigned to do.
If the crime involves, for example, illegal drug trafficking or organized armed groups, civilian prosecutors can charge civil servants without permission from their superiors. This includes military officers as well. The protection from legal prosecution only extends as far as the tasks required to perform one's duties.
With much debate going on over the legislation thanks to the “morning after” syndrome, we tend to forget how important this legislation is for the future of the country's efforts at democratization. This is the first time nobody in Turkey, perhaps with the exception of some small hardcore circles, opposed the substance of legislation, including the powerful military. Political parties, civic organizations, community groups and the bureaucracy all agreed that Turkey needs to clearly define the boundaries of the military judiciary in line with EU democracies.
The only objection seemed to have centered on the procedure the government undertook when presenting the changes as part of a larger legislative package. While opposition parties shared much enthusiasm for the spirit of the law, at least in public, they accuse the government of cheating. To me, this looks like an insult to the intelligence of those opposition deputies who raised their hands in favor of the legislation. These veteran politicians have been in Parliament for so long and know all the intricacies of legislative maneuvers. Yet they did not oppose the law as they knew the law would strengthen Turkish democracy.
The only explanation that comes to mind at this point is the position of party leaders and how they see things in Turkey. Unfortunately, in the Turkish political system, parties are strictly controlled by their leaders along with a few selected people to fill the rank and file. The reason for this is simple: Political candidates do not have much chance of winning in their own independent campaigns, but rather they need to rely on the political muscle of the party in pulling away from challengers. Only party leadership holds the key to unlocking the successful nomination process for the candidate, as well as providing funding necessary to win the election.
