The confession has come to refute earlier claims by the CHP that the party had no role in the banner scandal.
The banner in question criticizes the supporters of a government-backed constitutional amendment package and says a “yes” vote on the Sept. 12 referendum on the package will pave the way for Muslim women in Turkey to dress in nun-like attire. The CHP’s leader, Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu, strongly denied his party’s role in the banner scandal and implied that it was the work of the Justice and Development Party (AK Party). An inquiry by the Interior Ministry, however, revealed that the Avcılar mayor was behind the banner.
According to Turkish dailies, the Avcılar mayor made a phone call to Kılıçdaroğlu on Monday and said that the request for the campaign banner came from the CHP’s İstanbul provincial branch. “Upon a request and with the knowledge of the CHP İstanbul provincial branch, I assumed responsibility for the preparation of the banner. The banner reflects the opinion of the İstanbul branch, but not that of the Avcılar Municipality,” Değirmenci reportedly said.
Kılıçdaroğlu announced on Tuesday that Değirmenci would be referred to the party’s disciplinary board.
“I previously said we would apologize [for the banner scandal], if it turns out to have been prepared by the CHP. We will discuss the issue at the Central Executive Board [MYK]. We will refer Değirmenci to the disciplinary board,” he noted.
CHP İstanbul Provincial Chairman Berhan Şimşek, on the other hand, denied Değirmenci’s claims, and said his branch had no direct or indirect links to the banner scandal. He added that an inquiry into Değirmenci and the banner was looming. Sources said the inquiry may result in the expulsion of the Avcılar mayor from the main opposition party.
The controversial banner has dealt a serious blow to expectations that the CHP would keep its promise to solve, or at least help settle, the years-long headscarf problem in Turkey. Students wearing the headscarf are not allowed to attend courses at university with their scarves on. Covered women cannot enter certain public places, including schools, state institutions and military facilities.
People have expressed a lack of confidence in the main opposition party’s ability to resolve the headscarf problem. Mehmet Bakan, a shop owner in Avcılar, said he strongly criticized the CHP’s approach towards covered women. “The CHP likens covered women to nuns, although it recently announced an initiative for women wearing the black chador. If we are missing the point of the constitutional amendment package on the headscarf issue, Kılıçdaroğlu should inform us about it,” he noted, sarcastically.
The settlement of the headscarf problem has for long been a tough test for the CHP. In 2008, the party blocked a parliamentary vote to lift the controversial ban on headscarves at university campuses. Parliament passed a constitutional amendment to that end, but the CHP appealed the package to the Constitutional Court, which eventually annulled the amendment. The annulment drew the ire of society and the main opposition party -- most probably in an attempt to win back the hearts of conservative voters -- accepted women who wore the chador into its party ranks. But the party’s new members resigned from the party before long, arguing that the CHP administration was not sincere in its approach to the headscarf issue.
In March of this year, a group of CHP supporters publicly tore several black chadors into pieces, arguing that the chador did not conform to the principles of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the founder of the Turkish Republic. The chador is widely used as both traditional and religious attire in Anatolia.
The CHP administration is now working on how to settle the headscarf problem upon an order from Kılıçdaroğlu. The CHP leader recently said his party would definitely solve the problem. Hopes for a CHP contribution to the settlement of the problem were lowered, however, after a party member recently hinted that female students might be allowed to enter university courses if they agree to show some of their hair.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| BÜLENT KENEŞ | ![]() |
||
| What befell Niyazi-i Misri in the past is happening to Fethullah Gülen now | |||
| EKREM DUMANLI | ![]() |
||
| When a call for fairness and reason finds acceptance | |||
| ŞAHİN ALPAY | ![]() |
||
| Uludere, test case for democracy in Turkey | |||
| EMRE USLU | ![]() |
||
| Are the Kurds mentally divorced from Turkey? | |||
| GÖKHAN BACIK | ![]() |
||
| Erdoğan, Gül and Davutoğlu: the inner bargain on Turkish foreign policy | |||
| MARKAR ESAYAN | ![]() |
||
| Taking lessons from previous experiences with the military | |||
| YAVUZ BAYDAR | ![]() |
||
| Qualm | |||
| ÖMER TAŞPINAR | ![]() |
||
| A new phase in Syria? | |||
| İHSAN DAĞI | ![]() |
||
| Turkish foreign policy: Time for a re-evaluation | |||
| SEYFETTİN GÜRSEL | ![]() |
||
| Poor-friendly economic growth and the AK Party | |||
| CHARLOTTE MCPHERSON | ![]() |
||
| Missing women, missing opportunities | |||
| BERK ÇEKTİR | ![]() |
||
| Changes to incentives for investment in Turkey | |||
| MERVE BÜŞRA ÖZTÜRK | ![]() |
||
| The 1960 coup: a final test for democracy | |||
| AMANDA PAUL | ![]() |
||
| Ukraine: a lost country | |||
| MÜMTAZER TÜRKÖNE | ![]() |
||
| The 52nd anniversary of May 27 | |||
|
|
![]() |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||