Although the EU, which Turkey aspires to join, has put tremendous pressure on the government to scrap this article, no concrete step has yet been taken in this direction. Moreover, the opposition within Parliament to the amendment of the article and the heightened nationalist feelings in the Turkish public indicate that Turkey has a long way to go before it can move one of the most problematic barriers on its EU path. Talking about the likelihood of the article being taken up by Parliament this time, Sabah columnist Muharrem Sarıkaya does not find it very probable considering the continuation of the intra-party opposition within the ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party). He recalls how the same nationalist wing in the party prevented discussion of amendments to the article last year. In addition, the stance of the opposition parties like the main opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP) and Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), which strongly oppose amendment of the article, reinforce Sarıkaya’s pessimism. Last year, CHP leader Deniz Baykal gave examples of similar laws in EU countries and voiced opposition to the amendment of the article, and now he says they will see whether the government bows to pressure from the EU. “Our stance is obvious. Laws should not be changed due to pressure, this disturbs us,” Sarıkaya quotes Baykal as saying. Considering the lack of support for the amendment of Article 301 from within Parliament and the rise of nationalist deputies in Parliament following the elections, he thinks it will be difficult for Turkey to rid itself of this issue for quite some time.
Radikal’s İsmet Berkan thinks that even if this article were amended, it would not ease the concerns of the EU. He says this is because the amendment would not be a radical one since the “Turkish identity” phrasing would be retained in the law. “Acting on such an abstract concept, all the opinions harboring criticism about state institutions or the Turkish identity may be regarded as an insult to the things in question,” he claims. In Berkan’s view, what is most saddening about this article is that the debate centering on a few words has reached an embarrassing level and that despite the long period since it first appeared on Turkey’s agenda, no conclusion has been reached about how to deal with it.
Another columnist, Hasan Celal Güzel, complains that Turkey gives trump cards to the EU to use against itself in hindering its EU process, as is the case with Article 301. Güzel states that neither Turkish identity nor state institutions can be protected by violating freedom of speech. As a writer who has been prosecuted under this article numerous times, he believes that Article 301 should not be amended but abolished entirely, noting that abolishment of this article will not put state institutions or the Turkish identity in danger. “Those who attempt to insult these institutions will be faced with the opposition of the public. Rather than bringing these people before the law, we need to have society react in the wake of such actions without resorting to violence. The biggest trial is the social trial that takes place in the hearts of the Turkish nation, which will render the insults ineffective,” claims Güzel.
