The media, which is supposed to be a defender of democracy and the rule of law, learned a lesson from the military. How can the chief of general staff comment on a decision of the top court? This cannot be expected of him, nor should it be.This is not the first time our democratic standards have been demonstrated. Retired Chief of General Staff Gen. Hilmi Özkök had to explain on one occasion how he could not understand why there were inquiries about his pro-democracy stance. When asked about maintaining dominance through coercion, Özkök said, "Our brains and intellect can influence, not fists." Büyükanıt, likewise, responded to incessant questions on the Ergenekon investigation, an investigation into a crime network with links to the "deep state," by saying, "Stop and think about why the laws prohibit me from issuing a comment."
We live in a country in which everything is possible. The media's attempt to force the military to take action against politicians is just a small part of the unusual situation Turkey is accustomed to. As the nation waited for a verdict on the closure case, speculation over which names would be banned from politics in the absence of a closure decision ran wild. Although the Constitution provides for those whose statements would lead to the closure of a political party to be banned from politics, many did not completely exclude this marginal possibility. Many examples can be cited in which the Constitutional Court ignored existing law and acted as a lawmaker. The most we can say is that this should not happen. Despite the text of the Constitution, we thought it was possible that the court which is supposed to protect the Constitution may violate it.
Everyone is not focused on the reforms that the AK Party should push through after the verdict. However, the media and the judiciary also need to be reformed. Although the media seem to be a hopeless case, the judiciary at least needs to undergo this step. Constitutional Court President Haşim Kılıç called on politicians to reconcile and refrain from dragging the court into politics. This may be a start.
The court itself is uneasy with attempts to politicize it and it has said so. Kılıç noted that the court could not ignore the economic, social and political importance of the case, hence the swift action to conclude it. Although not explicitly expounded by the president, this importance reflected in the decision's characteristics.
The decision can be seen as a first step in restoring the Constitutional Court. This is a court that had nine of its decisions referred to the European Court of Human Rights. Of these nine, the European court imposed sanctions on Turkey with respect to eight. Aside from the binding nature of international agreements and conventions Turkey is party to, the overturning of eight out of nine verdicts undermines our prestige.
Even though the verdict was of vital importance for the AK Party, its meaning for the country and democracy was even more important. What matters is the upkeep of the democracy vessel. Captain and crew may be changed, parties and leaders come and go or are replaced. I think this is the most positive part of the decision. Let me conclude with a joke Zaman daily’s news director, Selahattin Karakış, made: The Constitutional Court decided not to close the party with a ratio close to that of the July 22 election results. Five of the 11 judges -- or 45.4 percent -- voted to keep the party open.
