As I saw it, Erdoğan’s conviction was a very strong case on the subject of freedom of expression that could have been argued before the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). I tried to explain to him how I viewed the case from my perspective. I guess that he later passed up on presenting this case before the ECHR due to the political results that it could have led to.
Over the course of my one-hour meeting with Erdoğan, it was apparent to me that I was speaking with a leader with extraordinary listening skills, one who was very intelligent, modest, and extremely charismatic. By the time our meeting was over, I was completely convinced that Erdoğan would soon be assuming a defining role as far as Turkey’s future was concerned. In any case, we all now know what happened in the subsequent years: Erdoğan got out of prison and went on to become the Prime Minister.
There can be no doubt that Erdoğan’s leadership has represented an historical turning point in Turkey from the perspective of democratization and the pulling back of the military guardianship over the country. It is quite clear that Erdoğan is one of Turkey’s most effective leaders ever. Turkey can now, from many perspectives, barely be compared at all anymore to its pre-2002 form. Still though, one can stand back and witness the fact that, despite all of these positive developments, there are certain arenas in Turkey wherein the nation is not moving forward, but instead are repeating those old, tired refrains.
Quite embarrassingly for Turkey, this nation is still at the top of the list of countries that convict the most writers and journalists to prison terms. There can be no question that our justice system, which appears to see the protection of the “continuity of the state” as a priority over the protection of human rights, makes a serious contribution to this situation. But it is, in the end, the elected government and Erdoğan, legal bills, and the positioning at critical instances that are responsible in the first degree for this situation.
Erdoğan, as a leader who has himself experienced punishment for words he uttered, and thus is familiar with the consequences of violations of freedom of expression, needs to develop greater sensitivity on this matter, and needs to display wisdom that could stand as an example to society on this subject. Unfortunately however, he has not succeeded in doing so....
For example, the very well known constitutional article 301, which was the cause of Hrant Dink’s death four years ago, still has not been lifted. The Turkish Penal Code put into effect in 2004 by the government, with its nearly 40 articles all carrying the potential to hinder human rights, fell into the arms of those with the desire to “protect the continuity of the state” like some sort of machine gun with which they could break all those journalists and intellectuals.
In a tragicomical fashion, the greatest victims of this same new Turkish Penal Code were the very same journalists and writers who defended the legitimacy of the Ergenekon case at the start of this newly elected government’s term. Newspapers, including the likes of Taraf, Zaman and Star, are still grappling with thousands of cases accusing them of being part of a “one-sided” press, of “violating rules of secrecy” and of “attempts to influence the passage of justice.”
During this entire process, while Erdoğan worked to widen by extraordinary dimensions the limits imposed on his own freedom of expression, he managed to show an increasingly more intolerant attitude towards those who would criticize him. In short, what has begun to emerge before us is an intolerant political figure who doesn’t hesitate to take out cases against caricaturists who draw him, or openly complain to media bosses when a certain writer displeases him with the content of his or her column. These are all moves which would never be encountered in developed democracies. I will continue on this topic tomorrow.
