It explained that it had fined the AK Party, against which a closure case had been filed last March on charges of being a focal point of anti-secular activity, instead of shutting it down because of the party's efforts to secure Turkey membership in the European Union and improve women's rights. The court imposed financial penalties on the party in July for eroding secularism, but dismissed a state prosecutor's request to shut down the party and ban Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and other leading party members from political activity for the next five years. The court basing its ruling on the statements of the party members, instead of concrete action that runs contrary to secularism, and its talk about Turkey's special circumstances instead of making juridical references, are among the primary subjects of this criticism.Sabah's Soli Özel, referring to the court citing Turkey's special circumstances, dwells on a problematic mentality among the members of the judiciary. "While judicial authorities are making their rulings on the very delicate issues faced by the country, they reach a conclusion from special circumstances, the threats the republic faces and the dangers that may result from small changes. These judicial rulings' violation of individual rights and their contradiction of even the minimum level of freedom required by a democratic state are not seen as an issue," Özel says.
Hürriyet's Ferai Tınç finds the court's reasoned statement on the closure case contradictory because it says the AK Party has become a focal point of anti-secular activity by reference to the statements of certain party members but, while showing how these statements contradict democracy, it outlines a very broad democratic framework. "If we are unable to talk about freedom of expression, how we will be able to draw a democratic framework, this shows that we have been unable to reach social consensus. Let's make something clear: Can one's expressing their views be an offense? I really do not find the court's ruling that the AK Party has become a focal point of anti-secular activity relying solely on the statements of party members very credible," Tınç writes.
Radikal's Türker Alkan is at odds with other columnists and thinks the Constitutional Court acted in a very balanced way by not shutting down the AK Party but imposing financial penalties on it instead. He says the government's initiative to lift the headscarf ban at universities, one of the main arguments used by the state prosecutor for showing the AK Party's anti-secularism, is not something that could do harm to the principle of secularism. But he argues that many politicians use the headscarf issue as a symbol against secularism.
