As I was writing this article, Parliament was working on the MİT bill at night. This is both a saddening situation and a lesson for us to learn. We should not forget that the ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party) has been in office during the last 10 years of the 30-year Constitution written following the Sept. 12, 1980 coup. These 10 years have been full of struggles. Therefore, we must be fair in our assessments about how the AK Party has been faring. Yet, it is obvious that in its third consecutive governmental term and as a party that secured about 50 percent of the national vote, the ruling AK Party is not enthusiastic about the drafting of the new constitution. Despite the fact that almost all parliamentary parties agree on the need for a new constitution, that the public is longing to have it and the fact that a new constitution will help us get rid of the shackles and strait jacket that were put on us with the Sept. 12 coup, the AK Party is indifferent to this process. This is so, even though everyone expects it to act as the powerhouse of this process, in which it should have acted with the same boldness it displayed with the MİT bill. As a matter of fact, the latest MİT crisis occurred because we did not have a new constitution and basic legal texts with universal standards. Unfortunately, except for the global economic crisis, we are unprepared for all crises. It is normal for crises to arise in life. This is nature. But, it is also true that in certain countries like ours, being caught unprepared in times of crisis causes greater damage than such crises would normally entail.
Expecting prosecutors to think and act like politicians
Accusations are currently being hurled at the prosecutors who summoned MİT undersecretary and officials to testify. Prosecutors are being expected to think and act like politicians. But, is this not the reason why we criticized members of the judiciary, such as the chief public prosecutor of the Supreme Court of Appeals who launched a closure case against the ruling AK Party? Did we not claim that they were acting politically and ideologically?
Now, Turkey is forced to become polarized between those who categorically lend support to the prosecutors and those who support the government. That is, one of the two must be categorically and absolutely true or false. Yet, historically speaking, no person or group has ever been completely right or wrong. And the MİT crisis is a very complicated matter. It relates to all of the intricate matters such as the Kurdish issue, the Kurdish initiative, the deep state network nested within the state institutions, the need for equality before the law and the job definitions of intelligence organizations as well as their inspection -- which is still an issue for many countries.
But, oddly enough, everyone seems to have a lucid mind when it comes to this matter, barring some exceptions. Either the government or the prosecutors are completely right. This, in turn, implies that everything is a bed of roses. We give the impression that we have a perfectly functioning system and we are now compensating for an action that occurred independently of the system and with evil intentions. I think this is dangerous ground.
As I continued to write this article, I heard that Parliament had passed the first article of the said bill. As a citizen who believes that all immunities should be removed, this bill sounds disgusting to me. In a country where anyone, including the chief of General Staff can be tried, no public official should be exempt from judicial review. Proponents of this bill argue that the prime minister will not have final authority over deciding whether a public official should be prosecuted as such decisions of the prime minister may be subject to review by the Council of State. But I don’t think even the deputies of the ruling party are happy about this bill.
On the other hand, it is also true that the scope, content and inspection of the borderline activities of intelligence organizations are still unsolved issues in many countries across the world. Perhaps, no one is inclined to resolve such matters. The world is not a bed of roses and states are not completely fair, transparent or democratic. As you might remember, although International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief Mohamed ElBaradei said Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. CIA intelligence reports claimed otherwise, which eventually paved the way for a military occupation of the country during the second Bush era. However, the CIA’s report that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction was later found to be incorrect. Even, after the invasion, the US troops could not find weapons of mass destruction in the country, but later claimed to have found them based on disinformation by an anti-Baath informant. When the CIA agents realized that this information was false; however, this information was hidden from President George W. Bush.
Intelligence a dirty business
Nevertheless, Bush didn’t remove Mullen from office and even gave him a state medal. When he was elected to office, President Barack Obama issued a circular allowing intelligence officers to be tried, but he had to backpedal because of a memorandum collectively issued by eight former CIA heads. Likewise, the waterboarding torture method was considered illegal in the past but was later accepted as legitimate. Despite strong public reaction and the Senate’s involvement, the intelligence officers involved in the Iraq and waterboarding scandals were not tried. Intelligence is a dirty business and it will remain so.
Considering the fact that even the US could not solve this matter despite tough laws and the Senate, it is not surprising to see Turkey is blundering and tripping up so much with respect to the intelligence business, which is a field completely free from inspection or legal definitions.
The main reason for the MİT crisis is that the prosecutors started a legal process that may eventually implicate Recep Tayyip Erdoğan with regards to negotiations with the Kurdish Communities Union (KCK). It is wrong to expect prosecutors to make political calculations before making any decision, but this is another truth in our court. The prime minister could not allow this. It would have been better if another solution could have been found among the institutions at a high level. With the MİT bill, we have another problem that will rear its ugly head now and in future.
Now, we are left with questions abound concerning the claims about MİT members. “MİT members are swarming at the common borders with our neighbors and they are committing crimes there,” prosecutors told journalist Mehmet Ali Birand. This is a gray or even black area.
Prime Minister Erdoğan will now assume a big responsibility with the power he gains with this bill. Mr. Erdoğan has strong public trust. He can assume this power in a fair manner. In the end, US presidents, too, have the same power. But can we also assume that the next prime minister will still be able to act with the same maturity in a highly polarized country like Turkey, where the case against Ergenekon, a clandestine organization nested within the state charged with trying to overthrow and manipulate the democratically elected government, is still unfinished? Of course, 40 percent of the nation who voted against the AK Party are free to share similar reservations about Erdoğan as well.
So, all in all, the issue is still unresolved and is even deeper.
