Here in Turkey, the Constitutional Court overturned a law passed last July that allowed military personnel to be tried by civilian courts. At the time, the new legislation had been hailed by foreign observers as a significant step toward civilian oversight of the military. The Constitutional Court, however, sided with the opposition and rejected the amendment.Such a ruling, which highlights once more the need for a new constitution, would be questionable at the best of times. Coming as it does just as new allegations of a coup plot surfaced, it constitutes a serious setback for Turkey’s European Union accession process and for the democratization of this country. The European Parliament has already expressed its concerns.
The documents published in recent days by Taraf, the most detailed to have emerged so far, hint at a vast plan to overthrow the elected government and engineer social and political change. Although the official investigation is just beginning, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan lent credence to the revelations when he said his government had previous knowledge of the conspiracy, hatched shortly after the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) came to power in 2002.
Sorting out what is true and what belongs to a spy novel is clearly crucial for the future of this country. Given the polarized atmosphere in the country and the suspicions that many still harbor about the government’s intentions, a parliamentary commission should be set up to investigate allegations. Alternatively, the government could bring in outside observers to ensure that the inquiry and judicial process are conducted fairly.
Shining light on these dark machinations, one would expect, should also be of utmost importance for the army, whose reputation, as recent surveys show, has been tarnished by the numerous conspiracy allegations revealed in recent months that involved retired or serving officers.
A free and fair investigation, followed by a trial conducted in the public eye, are needed to identify who was playing an active role and help clear the army of rogue elements who are overstepping their boundaries and therefore endangering the country’s legitimate defense activities. A trial of officers by their peers behind closed doors does not offer the necessary guarantee of independence on matters that affect the population at large.
Democratic accountability also took a blow on the other side of the Atlantic, where the justices of the Supreme Court of the United States have just ruled, by five votes against four, to remove long-standing restrictions on corporate spending during electoral campaigns. Already influenced by an army of lobbyists, American democracy now risks being handed over to corporate barons. How many politicians will have the courage to stand up to wealthy corporations knowing that they can spend an unlimited amount to support their opponents?
While democrats across the political spectrum have expressed shock, advertisers are already rejoicing. As the New York Times was quick to point out, with mid-term elections coming at the end of this year, the ruling promises a boom in televised ads during the campaign.
Civil rights defenders, however, worry that the decision will not only give undue influence to wealthy domestic companies, but also to international capital. Imagine how much China could spend to influence Congressional decisions. President Barack Obama vowed to seek opposition support for a new regulation that would counterbalance this disastrous ruling. One possible remedy would be new legislation demanding that ad sponsors identify themselves.
In short, transparency is as badly needed in the US as it is in Turkey. Two political systems, two countries at different levels of democratic development, yet in both judicial institutions which favor the interests of a small elite over those of the masses are undermining democratic rule. Whether still at the building stage or well established, democracy is a work constantly in progress that leaves no room for complacency.
