Democratic maturity process

Their response: “Perhaps no other existing civil democracy has had to overcome the obstacles that Turkey is trying to overcome. Despite this, Turkey is overcoming major obstacles without creating serious problems such as social conflict.” Certainly there have been major costs and serious pains, but there was virtually no other way the artificially supported status quo would allow civilian transformation.

The Protocol on Cooperation for Security and Public Order (EMASYA) has been abolished and active duty army commanders that have become involved in crimes are being summoned to court, with or without being detained. With the new Court of Accounts Law, all public institutions are becoming more transparent. Like all other institutions, the Turkish Armed Forces (TSK) is going to be audited and held accountable. Judicial reform has many crucial targets. The influence of social will over the legal system is being emphasized. The judiciary, which had adopted a political mission, is being redirected to its real mission and to its democratically legitimate scope. The National Security Policy Document (MGSB) will be revised to be able to change the state’s threat perception. Updated every five years, the document used to declare a significant portion of the society an enemy on the grounds that they posed an abstract “reactionaryism threat.” Action plans and junta attempts would be made to eliminate the enemy.

To be able to accomplish some of these judicial reforms, constitutional changes (and maybe referendums) are necessary. So why haven’t these steps been taken until now even though there has been immense public demand for them?

Justice and Development Party (AK Party) executives, such as Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, take a defensive position and say: “We have wanted to take these steps for seven years, but Turkey is just starting to reach a level of democratic maturity. Social demand was high, but the resistance of institutions and rules was continuing at full force. Now everyone knows how reckless and fearless this resistance is. Domestic obstacles are evident, but there are some points that we do not yet know. Later on in the future, the public is going to praise us for wanting to achieve our aims without causing damage or pain.”

In the last five years, Turkey has learned something very important. This piece of information was known to a certain extent, but it became much clearer over the last five years. This information was about the judiciary’s position and role. The judiciary held an important place in the status quo’s resistance, and unfortunately, it wasn’t hesitant to sacrifice justice for the sake of the status quo. The program that brought retired Supreme Court of Appeals Prosecutor Sabih Kanadoğlu and Democratic Judiciary Association President Osman Can face-to-face provided a good indication of this reality.

Kanadoğlu, the mastermind behind decisions that harmed the public’s sense of justice such as the need for a quorum of 367 in the 2007 presidential elections, displayed to the world his dissatisfaction with the change in Turkey. While Kanadoğlu defended the status quo with a longing for older days, Can emphasized that it was no longer possible to continue mistakes that were not compatible with the law. Kanadoğlu argued that “an extremely liberal Constitution” was prepared after the May 27, 1960 coup d’état while Can said the 1961 Constitution was a “dark stain” on the history of Turkish law. This is a sign of the desperation of not just Kanadoğlu but all defenders of the status quo. The status quo’s helplessness has allowed new steps to be taken toward democratic maturity. The opposition’s tendency to engage in futile arguments instead of voicing social demands is being evaluated as a reflection of the disturbance they feel over the new steps that are being taken.