This last year in Turkey has seen many examples of such turmoil. The ever-increasing scope of the case against Ergenekon and its spread through the echelons of active-duty military officers has further pushed a timely conclusion to the case further away, bringing onto the agenda concerns for a fair trial. This mood has paved the way for neo-nationalist politics to nest itself within the main opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP), which nominated three Ergenekon defendants as deputy candidates in the recent elections. It is not clear whether the party’s leadership was really eager to nominate them. But it wouldn’t be surprising to learn that there was similar bargaining behind the scenes that from nowhere put Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu at the head of the party. On the other hand, every step was taken for whatever reasons for a commitment to be made to the electorate. Accordingly, the CHP is today obliged to defend these Ergenekon deputies and we are entering a period in which Kılıçdaroğlu’s sphere of influence will contract further. As a matter of fact, Kılıçdaroğlu was getting his power from his ability to offer a compromise between neo-nationalists and progressive groups by assuming a position equidistant from both groups. However, for the time being, the Ergenekon deputies can not enter Parliament, which led to the entire CHP parliamentary group refusing to participate in the swearing-in of Parliament. There is nothing wrong with a party defending the people it nominated. But a political outcome that will go beyond the motive of humanitarian solidarity is that the CHP will be forced to carry the flag of neo-nationalism, like it or not, in future. If courts insist on preventing the deputies in question from entering Parliament, the CHP will force itself to keep away from parliamentary activities and cause a crisis that would make it all the harder to backpedal later. If this situation does not change over an extended period of time, this will not only prevent the party from participating in the decision making process, but also boost intra-party opposition. Thus, one can safely assume that Deniz Baykal and Önder Sav must be quite pleased with the current situation. On the other hand, since there is nothing Kılıçdaroğlu can do to shorten this period, the CHP may tend to exaggerate the crisis and base its entire policy on it. This unfortunately means a new conflict would not prove beneficial to anyone amid expectations for a new constitution.
The pro-Kurdish Peace and Democracy Party (BDP), which has not made up its mind about its course of action concerning the taking of the parliamentary oath, made a much more radical move to boycott Parliament and deployed its parliamentary group to Diyarbakır. Their reaction may even be symbolically considered as their intention to create a parallel parliament. In terms of their political background, Hatip Dicle and the deputies who are in jail in connection with the case against the Kurdish Communities Union (KCK) being denied entry to Parliament cannot be compared to the Ergenekon defendants. But still the BDP should have opted to enter Parliament and participate in the constitution drafting process so that they might ensure that unfair practices are eliminated within the coming year. Yet, the political goals of the BDP and the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) are designed solely to weaken the bargaining power of the regime. This implies that they are trying to undermine the bargaining power of the ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party) as it is the party controlling the majority of seats in Parliament. As a result, the pro-Kurdish politics chose to deepen or complicate the crisis instead of solving it. The BDP offers its own victimization as grounds for justification and believes that all sorts of policies coming from here are legitimate. But everyone should ask this question of themselves: With these exaggerated crises, is it truly possible to produce a new definition of citizenship, draft a new constitution or introduce amendments that will satisfy pro-Kurdish demands? Who will pay the price of undermining the legislative activities at a time when 87 percent of society participated in the general elections and 95 percent of the nation is represented in Parliament? Obviously, it will not be paid by the AK Party. Still it has the responsibility of intervening and solving the issues. If it can take a step in this direction, the AK Party will prove once again that it is the main actor of change and the outcome never favored by the opposition will ironically manifest itself once again. But if the AK Party acts imprudently, it will have to carry the burden of the deepening crisis.
