More often than not, Turkey gives the impression of a madhouse. It is one of those epicenters where relapses of irrational behavior cause bewilderment over its present and future. Contradictions are sometimes magnificent: As the gorgeously situated Sümela Monastery opens after many years for worship and prayer, the media deliver the shocking news that the “state” -- as part of the significant Dink v. Turkey case at the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) -- in its defense drew a parallel between Hrant Dink, the assassinated editor-in-chief of the Armenian Agos weekly, and a neo-Nazi leader, likening Dink’s trial to that of neo-Nazi leader Michael Kühnen versus the German government.
This, to say the least, perplexes any Turkey observer on where Ankara really stands regarding minority rights and freedom of expression.
As much as the Sümela initiative deserves praise, what is revealed in the content of the state’s defense in the Dink case (a prospective, guiding process about the future of the notorious Article 301 in Turkey) is a major scandal.
It is at the same time a clear example of a country under transformation and one that is forcing its authoritarian, repressive state structures to change with mixed results.
The scandal is certainly instrumentalized in the polarization. Those who dislike the government are keen on putting the entire blame on the justice and foreign affairs ministries, bringing to the fore arguments that it is not at all sincere in its democratization.
It is never that simple. Transformation under Turkey’s circumstances means a tough struggle for control and coordination of the bureaucracy and changing the pro-state mentality. After eight years in power, the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) is still unsuccessful in implementing both.
The reactions of President Abdullah Gül, Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu and Justice Minister Sadullah Ergin also confirm the complexity of duality in the state’s performances in cases of human rights. All three have been apologetic about the handling of the case and expressed shame that a victim, whose assassination can never be explained without the context of his exercise of free speech, is compared by the state’s lawyer to a person tried for hate speech.
It is a commendable act that President Gül rather swiftly met with Hosrof Dink, the late Dink’s brother, and shared the family’s grief. Is Gül aware that the entire set of cases related to Dink and his loved ones has turned into a farce for law experts and a tragedy for Dink’s friends and colleagues? To be able to respond with a clear “yes” to the question, we should now monitor whether Gül’s office will be as determined, engaged and swift in launching an inquiry to find out who in the ministries of justice and foreign affairs was responsible.
Davutoğlu also started an internal investigation to find out where the source of the scandal is. Though this, too, is commendable, it may not be enough. Davutoğlu knows that Turkey has had more than its share of complaints from its citizens, who do not seem to cease suffering from the interpretations and practices of the judicial system. Therefore, new and firm directives must be issued internally to instruct the state’s lawyers to either refrain from defending sentences in cases related to freedom of expression and/or to advise political decision makers to make legal changes to avoid further shame at the ECtHR.
No one doubts that the Dink v. Turkey case will end in favor of Dink and that Turkey will be found guilty once more. The ECtHR ruling is expected in a month or two. The lack of sufficient time makes it meaningless of present a different “defense” of the government. It may, at this stage, perhaps issue a statement, regretting the arguments in the defense, and ask the statement to be added to the ECtHR case files. If the ECtHR rules against the government of Turkey, it could -- and should -- refrain from appealing the decision any further. The damage has already been done. The Dink family already lost its confidence in justice after four to five years of harassment and, finally, the murder of their loved one.
At this stage, two steps await to be taken: The Dink murder case must be sped up. Second, as a grand and symbolic gesture, the government must immediately and altogether abolish Article 301, which acted as a sort of guidebook for the assassination, after the referendum.
To avoid shame, and to signal a bold stance, there is only one way forward as bureaucrats can only be blamed so much. For the best defense in all cases linked to human rights, the ruling party should pull itself together and continue to change the legislation. One real threat is already approaching. Complaints filed on the problematic Internet Law will inevitably lead to other moments of shame.
