The pro-Kurdish Democratic Society Party’s (DTP) shift toward confrontational rhetoric and harsh discourse like “the process is over” not only displays risky confusion in an already volatile socio-political situation but also signals to the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) that, after a long period of polarization with the other two opposition parties, it will be totally alone in its further travels. There can be reasons other than the primary driving element in the DTP’s cop-out, namely the unconditional devotion to Abdullah Öcalan’s plight of freedom and leadership, and these reasons may be why there is mistrust among the Kurds that “the Turkish state is not to be trusted” and that this process may turn out to be another failure.“Even the halva [a soft dessert] prepared by the Turkish state can break your teeth; this is a common saying among us,” said a Kurdish intellectual, who is a reform supporter and non-PKK sympathizer, yesterday, while discussing the latest developments. He has lost some of the optimism he had initially. His concern was focused on what sort of scenario would emerge if the Constitutional Court decides to close the DTP.
There are reasons to be worried that even if the transformation processes tend to be painful, the course of politics and possible shifts of opinion may push Turkey back into a storm. Change seems inevitable, yes, but should “soft” be exchanged for “hard”? Predictions may be much blurrier.
In about a month -- possibly in early January -- we will find out about the fate of the DTP. The final deliberations of the top court may be delayed somewhat if the DTP asks for an “extension.” Meanwhile, one would hope common sense returns to the streets and towns and that the DTP reconsiders and discusses its role in relation to the future of Turkey.
Nevertheless, the road traveled by the AKP since the last elections needs to be revisited and briefly examined now that it risks being ostracized by the entire opposition represented in Parliament (except a few deputies).
Ever since the constitutional amendment on the headscarf and freedom of education failed and ever since the AKP evaded closure by a top court last year, the AKP strategy has been based on the motto of continuing reforms but on selected issues, “partially.” The pledge made before the national elections in July 2007 to adopt a new Constitution was shelved indefinitely.
The question now, arguably more and more valid, is whether this strategy has consumed Turkey, causing it to be out of breath, bringing its already archaic politics to the end of the road.
The AKP traveled the road rather bruised and more or less alone due to a legally laughable closure process and a remarkable verdict, but each and every attempt in the past year to “partially” reform the system led to painful processes into the high judiciary, causing delays, a waste of valuable political energy and disarray. In some cases, the executive power and the president felt rather paralyzed about monitoring the military bureaucracy at all due to the current Constitution.
The path of the Kurdish reform process -- so far -- has added to the arguments. It is commendable -- as all the other attempts for reforms declared -- that the AKP plans to go ahead and that -- as Erdoğan said recently -- “even we are alone; we take only the will of our people to account.” The engine of politics may fail. All the “countercurrents” against the reform gain their strength from an unchanged, badly written and often ill-interpreted Constitution and a number of laws dating back to the 1980 military coup. Unless you change the main denominator, the chief variable, you are doomed to work tirelessly to stop a flood coming from a million different directions. A new Constitution, by Parliament or by a referendum, looks inevitable if there is to be order between social and economic progress and its management.
There is enough reason to predict that this will be the dominating theme as politics seems destined to be stuck in between a maximalist, exclusively hostile opposition and an obstinate, short-sighted, conservative judiciary.
