Some democratically minded judicial sources whispered into my ears several weeks ago that there might be attempts to initiate a process to close the AK Party. As a matter of fact, not long after my sources made this prediction, the prosecutor’s office turned its projectiles on the AK Party due to the latest renewed reports that wiretapping incidents have become widespread.
Supreme Court of Appeals Chief Prosecutor Abdurrahman Yalçınkaya, in an interview with the Milliyet daily last Saturday, hinted that a preliminary investigation had already been launched against the AK Party to see whether wiretapping was carried out in violation of the principles of the state of law. The investigation against the AK Party has reportedly been launched under Article 68, which regulates adherence to the principles of the state of law.
At the center of the latest controversy is whether the ruling party’s Justice Ministry and the Telecommunications Directorate (TİB) have been wiretapping the telephones of a chief public prosecutor and some members of the Supreme Court of Appeals for a long time as part of an ongoing probe into a clandestine organization named Ergenekon. Both the ministry and the TİB strongly denied the allegations that there has been illegal wiretapping.
It was again upon Yalçınkaya’s indictment seeking the closure of the AK Party that the Constitutional Court made a ruling in the middle of last year. The court ruled against the closure of the party but imposed a financial penalty. The indictment argued that the AK Party was involved in activities violating the secular character of the nation.
The Constitutional Court itself, the country’s highest court, whose rulings have long been challenged over grounds that they are ideologically motivated, has been facing criticism over its pro-establishment stance led by staunchly secular bureaucrats under the influence of the military.
Now that the prosecutor’s office has initiated a preliminary investigation into the AK Party over the wiretapping incidents, this is widely seen as an excuse to initiate a second closure case against the ruling party in a country where more than 22 political parties have been closed down. But those rulings did not prevent the closed parties from re-emerging under different names.
The latest war over wiretapping should in essence be seen as the continuation of a bitter power struggle between bureaucrats under the influence of the military and the civilian authority as the latter has been trying to minimize, if not totally end, the dual power state structure in Turkey in favor of civilian politics.
The Ergenekon investigation and trials over the past two years, under which several retired generals and active duty officers in addition to academics, journalists and businessmen are being charged with inciting armed action to unseat the AK Party, have marked a new period in Turkey where the military-led bureaucratic elite, seeing itself as the quasi ruler of the nation, has been losing its power base to the civilians.
The judicial angle of this power struggle has intensified lately with the wiretapping incidents. This, however, does not mean that the government has the responsibility to ease public concerns over wiretapping paranoia. Negligence over easing public concerns will also play into the hands of those Ergenekon suspects and their supporters including those from within the judiciary.
The latest wiretapping incident may drag the country into deeper chaos with the ultimate goal of wearing down the government. Therefore, it is meaningless to read the latest developments centered on wiretapping from the legal point of view.
In a country like Turkey, intended to be ruled by a Constitution designed by the 1980 coup leaders and adopted in 1982, it is not possible to talk about the full implementation of the principles of the state of law.
