Democracy, tolerance and forbearance

Responding to Şahin's questions, he emphatically said that he has "benefited from all criticisms both during his academic life and his political career in government" and that he has "profound forbearance in this regard."

Frankly speaking, I can personally attest to these qualities of Mr. Davutoğlu, whom I had known before he become first the chief foreign policy adviser to the prime minister and then the foreign minister. However, I also know from rumors coming to me from various channels that he is very disturbed with the foreign policy analysis I occasionally make in this column as well as foreign policy analyses or criticism made by our esteemed columnists. I even hear -- though it sounded unbelievable at first -- that some bureaucrats close to him had taken this further by calling some of our columnists over the phone to "convince" them that their position is misguided, and that they even used a "threatening" tone during these phone calls.

No one wants to be criticized, of course. Human nature does not like criticism. But do you think that it is normal for people who are at the helm of the country to believe that they don't deserve even the slightest criticism of their actions and even act in line with this perception? I personally don't see criticism targeting an individual's person as falling within the normal bounds of criticism. And I don't allow this to be done via this newspaper I am administering. That said, no one has the right to see certain analyses, criticism or suggestions -- made aptly or in error -- written in connection with policy as ill-meaning or hostile, I reckon.

Our impression from the leaked draft texts of the EU Progress Report is that concerns about freedom of the press and freedom of expression in Turkey have gone beyond the country's borders. The latest developments, unfortunately, serve only to reinforce these worries instead of eliminating them. Indeed, when Turkish Industrialists and Businessmen's Association (TÜSİAD) President Ümit Boyner voiced doubts about what really happened in Uludere -- where 34 civilians were mistaken for terrorists and killed in military air strikes in Şırnak's Uludere district, due to false intelligence -- and in Afyonkarahisar -- where 24 soldiers were martyred in an arsenal explosion -- and said, "The people want to know what happened in Uludere and the behind-the-scenes story of the blast in Afyonkarahisar, and they want to know who is responsible for them," Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's response to her was sadly in the same vein.

"First of all, what authority is supposed to give the signal, to the highest point, about everything, about what should be known? It is the government, the judiciary, the General Staff… They are saying things like, ‘It is our right to know.' Whose has what right? How extensive is that right? Ümit Boyner can't measure that. She should mind her own business," the prime minister said in what amounted to a crucial breach of freedom of thought, of citizens' right to information as the Holy Grail of democratic and transparent governance and of the democratic values which the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) had promised to deliver to the Turkish nation in its party program. This incident would deserve to be discussed and analyzed in detail even if it were an individual case. But it is unfortunately not an isolated incident.

For instance, a development that occurred on Wednesday can also be seen as falling into this category. As is known, there is a program that was introduced by Davutoğlu and that even dates back to the years when he was an adviser to the prime minister. Under this program, when he is available, he holds meetings, though not in a regular fashion, to inform journalists, columnists and intellectuals who deal with foreign policy issues of recent developments and to conduct discussions with them. After he became the foreign minister, he tended to designate a Foreign Ministry undersecretary to this task when his program did not allow him to attend these meetings personally. So far, Today's Zaman has categorically been invited to these meetings. However, we did not receive any invitation to a briefing held on Wednesday by Foreign Ministry Undersecretary Feridun Sinirlioğlu. When we inquired with the Foreign Ministry spokesperson about the reason via a journalist who is a friend of mine and who attended that meeting, we learned that “no one from Today's Zaman was invited because they trimmed the list of journalists to be invited to these meetings.”

If the reason for Today's Zaman's omission had been negligence or fault, it wouldn't be acceptable. Yet, what a coincidence that the squad bossed by Mr. Davutoğlu "trimmed" the list of journalists to be invited and, for some reason, the first thing they left out turned out to be Today's Zaman, a paper which predominantly deals with diplomatic news coverage! Furthermore, during this "trimming," they forgot to sacrifice several “esteemed” columnists whom we have never witnessed write a single article on diplomatic matters. They also forgot to sacrifice multiple columnists or journalists attending those meetings from the same newspaper or media group. Another oddity was that the journalists who filled the meeting hall were predominantly from the Doğan Media Group, which was it appears left out of this "trimming." Furthermore, the fact that more than one journalist or columnist attended from our rival English language daily is proof that this "trimming" operation targeted solely Today's Zaman.

I don't know if Foreign Minister Davutoğlu has any role or involvement in this unusual operation. A number of respectable people close to him say it was done "without his knowledge." I would be inclined to believe this was the case had it not been the Foreign Ministry spokesperson who voiced the justification for this "trimming" operation. I cannot be sure about this as I believe that the Foreign Ministry spokesperson represents the will of Mr. Minister. Suppose he did not know or was not involved in this operation. He will certainly hear about it. Availing myself of this opportunity, I would like to ask him: Is this how affairs are handled at the Foreign Ministry, which we believe to be one of the most established public institutions? Is the level of intolerance to foreign policy analysis so high that you are urged to ban a newspaper which is a platform for such analysis from a regular briefing? Where is Mr. Davutoğlu's vast tolerance and forbearance? Or should we conclude that his ministry and staff have not been inspired in the least by his good qualities that they react to the smallest criticism by resorting to discrimination?