Six of the court’s 11 judges voted for the party’s closure -- one vote short of the number necessary to actually close it down. Only Chief Justice Haşim Kılıç voted against placing any sanctions on the AK Party, while four of the other judges voted to cut its Treasury aid. The decision was interpreted by Kılıç as a “serious warning” to the AK Party.Of course, the top court’s decision should be viewed as a kind of relief for Turkey, at least for the short term. However, one cannot ignore the fact that the verdict contained an implicit threat against the AK Party. This decision will always be wielded as a “sword of Damocles” against the party. Just after the announcement of the decision, those who were not happy that AK Party was not closed began to argue that the top court did not clear it of the charges of being a focal point of anti-secular activities but that, on the contrary, the court endorsed the claims raised in the indictment.
Though I think the decision of the top court is not correct, I must accept that this interpretation of the decision is right. The Constitutional Court recognized the indictment’s claims against the AK Party but found that the evidence was not sufficient to close the party, so it chose a different punishment.
At this point, it could be said that the decision will cause serious problems and block the reformist policies of the ruling AK Party in the mid to long term. The decision, as a kind of “yellow card,” has done serious damage to the power of the AK Party. It will always be abused by the opposition, the establishment, Kemalists, neo-nationalists and fundamentalist secularists who are against the AK Party. Thus, it will create a lack of courage and self-confidence in the ranks of the AK Party and paralyze its strength and eagerness to pursue the democratic reforms that Turkey needs. In sum, this decision completely deprived the AK Party of the power and courage to change the current Constitution, which was drafted by the military regime in 1982 following the Sept. 12, 1980 military coup d’état.
As could have been predicted, the ultra-secularist, Kemalist main opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP) and other staunchly secularist circles have assessed the court decision as a confirmation of the anti-secularist political identity of the AK Party.
Unfortunately, this approach is not wrong in the context of the court decision, which I personally think is baseless. So, in this confining and erosive atmosphere, what should the AK Party and Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan do? Should the AK Party go smoothly on its way, saying, “At least our party has not been closed”? Or should they look for a way to cope with this problem? And what will the way be to proceed despite these restraints?
First of all, the AK Party people and its leadership should accept that, despite the court’s decision, Turkey still continues to bear the shame of political party closures. Yes, perhaps because of certain political considerations the Constitutional Court did not close the AK Party, but another closure case is still on the court’s agenda. The case against the pro-Kurdish Democratic Society Party (DTP), which stands accused of having links with the outlawed Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) terrorist organization, is still pending. There is a high probability that the DTP will be closed, based on the articles of the current Constitution. The articles regarding the closure of political parties are not the only defect of the current Constitution. There are many more aspects of it that do not meet the needs of a more democratic Turkish nation. It has many articles that prevent the Turkish people from establishing a more democratic country and from improving standards of individual rights and freedoms. Moreover, the rising polarization in the country proves that the current Constitution has lost its status as a “social contract.” So Turkey and the Turkish people are in urgent need of a new “social contract.”
However, following the recent decision of the top court, the AK Party government has lost its chance to make a new, more democratic, more civilian and more libertarian constitution. As we accept that Turkey’s most essential need today is to establish a new constitution, it is the duty of AK Party to find a way to do this. No political party other than AK Party has the ability to accomplish this. So we come to the same question again: What should the AK Party do?
The AK Party has no way other than calling early general elections, before which it should declare that its top priority will be to draft a new constitution when it is re-elected. The AK Party has a good opportunity to do this because Turkey will hold local elections in March 2009. The AK Party could chose either to hold general elections together with the local polls next March, or it could merge the two elections and hold them in November of this year.
I predict that with a strong promise to write a new constitution after the elections the AK Party will enjoy the support of at least 55 percent of the electorate. After coming to power with even more strength and popular legitimacy, the AK Party should present the draft constitution that has already been prepared by a committee of academics led by Professor Ergun Özbudun to Parliament without making any changes to it. The new constitution, as a “new social contract,” could carry Turkey to a new age of democracy and freedom.
Otherwise, if there is no early election, it will be difficult to expect the AK Party to match the reformist performance of the past few years.
