Abant Platform urges democratization in judiciary

At the end of discussions held under the title “Democratization for a New Social Consensus,” the Abant Platform concluded that in order to ensure freedoms and rights, the judiciary should be democratized and its oligarchic structure changed.

The group regularly convenes to discuss some of the most vital issues for Turkey and the world with the participation of individuals from every segment of society and prominent intellectuals. It met in Ankara on Friday and Saturday at the Rixos Hotel and issued its declaration at the conclusion of the discussions.

The declaration underlined that the solution to the Kurdish question and the problems of the Alevi community in Turkey are both prerequisites for democratization but at the same time are opportunities to ensure democratization.

Intellectuals at the Abant Platform also underlined the importance of confronting the past. The declaration said that “to confront the past and tragic events, the first responsibility was to the Armenian tragedy as a matter of conscience.”

According to the Abant Platform, international and regional developments are also giving Turkey opportunities to democratize; however, the intellectuals underlined that society is mature enough to ensure democratization.

International atmosphere and law as a commodity

At the first session on Friday “Demand for Change and Its Promises” was discussed under the chairmanship of journalist Cengiz Çandar. Professor Ersel Aydınlı elaborated on the “impact of regional and global development on change.” He said that that there are two main contradicting trends in the world: On the one side is globalization, which brings liberalization and democratization, and on the other is international competition, which underlines fear, isolation and suspicion.

He added that discussions usually stress one of those trends and underestimate the other. Aydınlı emphasized that the world’s expectations of Turkey were for a “strong state and strong democracy,” which means being democratic internally but powerful in the external world.

The Abant Platform, which regularly convenes to discuss some of the most vital issues for Turkey and the world, concluded at the end of its latest meeting on Saturday that in order to ensure freedoms and rights, the judiciary should be democratized and its oligarchic structure changed.

“I guess the international system is thinking that to ensure peace and stability in the region it’s essential to have a Turkey which is both democratic and powerful at the same time,” he said.

However, ensuring such a transformation is not easy and can bring unexpected results. In order to get positive results, the organs of the state should be democratized without destroying them. “I think the international system does not want a transformation that damages Turkey, but rather a stable one. I also think it is possible to ensure the transformation of Turkey while retaining its stability and power. Consensus can manage it,” he said.

According to Aydınlı, the elites within the state organs in Turkey are aware of globalization, and this situation gives hope to the possibility of transforming Turkey without causing major damage.

Eser Karakaş, in his presentation “Opening the Law to Competition,” likened law to trade. He said that when Turkey entered the customs union with the European Union, its products were able to compete, but when it comes to the judiciary, this is not the case, as was seen in the statistics of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). He said that Turkey had the highest number of citizens applying to the ECtHR and that 90 percent of the ECtHR’s decisions regarding Turkey had ruled that at least one article of the European Convention on Human Rights had been violated.

“Turkish refrigerator production has legitimacy because it is able to find customers in global markets, but we cannot say the same for the rulings of its courts,” he said.

He added that judicial reform in Turkey could be achieved not by discussing how and who will be appointed to the higher courts but how to avoid its rulings being overturned by the ECtHR.

Laying down of arms has two sides

Vahap Çoşkun, while elaborating on “Democratization as a Tool for the Solution to the Kurdish Question,” underlined that the Kurdish question is the product of a lack of democracy but that democratization would not mean the automatic solution of the Kurdish question.

Çoşkun said that as a first step towards a solution, the end of clashes has to be ensured. According to him a further step would be a laying down of arms but that there are two sides in this process.

“To expect that the [Kurdistan Workers’ Party] PKK will deliver its guns is far fetched. Also there is a difference between the elimination of the PKK and its laying down its arms. The PKK is not an organization that has a few men in the mountains; it is a very large organization that has many extensions. All these extensions have to be taken into account in the suggested solution,” he said.

According to him, under these conditions the state has to talk to the PKK, not necessarily through official channels – backdoor talks could be used. Çoşkun added that it is also important to take feelings into account; mutual trust has to be established at least at a minimum level in order to refrain from further conflict.

Judiciary as an obstacle

In the next session, the “Indispensable Common Platform,” under the chairmanship of Mustafa Şentop, Professor Baskın Oran in his presentation on “A Biased Judiciary as the Main Obstacle to Freedom of Expression” said that even blatant defamation and slander are not convicted in the judiciary; however, it convicts any criticism of the dominant political culture. He also said that the judiciary acts as though it has never heard of some legal documents and regulations; for example, Article 90 of the Constitution, which indicates that international agreements are superior to domestic law.

He said that the judiciary also acts as though it has never heard of the Lausanne Treaty, the founding agreement of the Turkish Republic. An example he gave was that of minorities being considered “foreigners” and once, the judiciary even used the term of “foreign citizens of Turkey” in one of its rulings.

Oran said that the members of the higher judiciary did not read about and were not interested in recent developments and discussions of the law. “They are biased. Worse, some members of the judiciary defend the idea of being ideologically biased. The judiciary should be independent, not only from legislation and its execution but it should also be independent of its own ideology,” Oran said.

Necdet Subaşı, the coordinator of the government’s Alevi initiative, in his remarks on “The Relation between the Qualities of the State and the Freedom of Conscience and Belief” underlined that the republic is based on secularism but that this secularism is not based on a social contract and that its aim is to protect the state from the effects of religion.

He said this understanding had led the state to try to benefit from religion and use it as a tool or try to reshape the religion. Subaşı added that under these circumstances the government had launched its Alevi initiative.

He recalled that they had held seven meetings, not only with representatives but also the religious leaders of the Alevi community. Sunni and Alevi people also met as a part of these meetings.

“Alevis had suspicions that the state was trying to transform them into Sunnis, and Sunnis thought the Alevis would create problems after their recognition, but democratization is helpful in easing these concerns,” he said.

‘As an Armenian, I don’t want to be mentioned with the word “problem”’

One of the most appropriate speeches came from Hayko Bağdat, who discussed being a minority in pluralist society. Bağdat said that in Turkey the word Armenian is always mentioned with the word problem. He underlined that in the past one in four people in Turkey was Armenian but that they no longer exist. “But the discussion is concentrated on the number of the victims in the 1915 events and worse, there is an understanding that ‘they deserved it’,” he said and added, “The counterpart in the Armenian problem is you, your conscience,” he said.

Bağdat added that to search for a solution in the US lobbies was not logical, either, since the Bush administration was responsible for the deaths of 1.5 million people. He also mentioned the protocols signed by Turkey and Armenia aiming to open the border and establish diplomatic relations between the two countries.

“For me these protocols are real politics. First, you should come to peaceful terms with your Armenians before Armenia,” he said.

At the panel discussion titled “Pluralistic Society and Common Language for the Oppressed People” under the chairmanship of Professor Naci Bostancı, Leyla İpekçi underlined that the media in Turkey have developed an interdependence with big capital, politics and militarism. She added that in the name of a pluralist media, the same business groups started to publish various newspapers but that this does not mean pluralism at all. İpekçi underlined that in such an atmosphere many critical developments, such as assassinations, disappeared persons and extrajudicial killings, were not covered. She said over time, the media itself became undemocratic instead of contributing to democracy.