Signs of hope and despair

Mr. Gül proved that he is the president of all citizens. He assured Parliament that while he did not want to delve into politics which is the prerogative of the government, he cannot remain aloof from drawing attention to national problems that concern the totality of the nation.

The president's emphasis was especially on the management of the diversity that should be the foundation of national unity. Cultural diversity should not be repressed or denied, or for that matter, perceived as a danger to national unity. Uniformity is not a guarantee of solidarity or stability. Cultural groups that value and demand the preservation of their indigenous cultures should be assured of such a right and freedom. These rights and freedoms must be constitutionally guaranteed.

President Gül gave us the good news that assimilation and the repression of cultural differences has come to an end as state policy. A state respectful of cultural pluralism is also observant of the rule of law.

This refreshing speech was also followed by the army's top brass, who finally seem to have come to terms with Mr. Gül as president of the republic. Another speech raised our hopes for a better future. Mr. Erdoğan's comprehensive and effective speech delivered at the AK Party congress last weekend that targeted his party members as well as wider audiences was a call to improve the standard of Turkish democracy.

He pointed out the need for change and increasing the capacity of the system to solve problems. Once again he emphasized the fact that the burning question in Turkey is the Kurdish problem. It requires the use of tools other than military and police methods. He emphasized the need for elite or political consensus to solve the issue. That is why he called on all concerned political organizations, especially the opposition parties, to participate in the solution.

He pointed out that it was unfair to accuse the AK Party of not approaching other parties with a final recipe in pursuit of an acceptable solution. The same parties would scold the government for not leaving them any room to make their genuine contributions.

Mr. Erdoğan also alluded to the need to curb interventions in the democratic and legislative process by the bureaucracy and the judiciary, which see no harm in acting like the opposition to the AK Party's initiatives that they see as “obscurantist.” However, launching a change campaign needs a major constitutional amendment or a total renewal of the existing military-made Constitution. Although he did not say this explicitly, Mr. Erdoğan made sure that his message got through. This was a good public relations maneuver which has targeted the electorate and that will in turn pressurize their party organizations and leaders.

It seems that the AK Party will try to change the Constitution not wholly but in chunks, forcing the option of a referendum if the government cannot obtain a qualified majority (two-thirds). However, the crescendo is expected to come after an early election in 2010 if none of these constitutional changes can go through due to the opposition and the judiciary's blockade.

If one remembers how the same judiciary denied Parliament (AK Party majority) the introduction of a new constitution and implied that constitutions made after military coups can be replaced through the same method, one feels how far the Turkish judiciary is removed from the principle of the rule of law and international legal standards.

Against all odds, there is a government that seems intent on going through with democratic reforms and the much-needed “peace project.” This offers hope to Turkey's bleak present.