por Yusuf Kanli
Letters from agitated pro-Justice and Development Party (AKP) and anti-AKP readers of this column have apparently two things in common: They are unhappy with the current situation in Turkey. They are unhappy that this writer is not stressing sufficiently enough the importance of secularism for Turkish democracy or “acting like a mouthpiece for the opposition Republican People's Party (CHP) and die hard so called secularists” and not objecting strong enough to their campaign that did not allow the AKP elect Foreign Minister Abdullah Gül as president although “under the Turkish constitution, the AKP has the right to choose the next president.” First of all, let me underline in all clarity that secularism is the backbone of Turkish democracy. If there is to be democracy in any Muslim society, secularism has to be its central pillar. This is a matter of whether sovereignty is divine or belongs to the nation. So plain and simple... Secularism and democracy are not adversaries. On the contrary, secularism is a sine qua non of flourishing of democracy in a Muslim society. Secondly, in this column I have written scores of times since April 2006 that the election of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan or someone from the AKP as a president of the country has to be accepted by the opponents of the ruling party. But the ruling party should also accept the fact that, headed by secularism, this country has its sensitivities. Rather than trying to impose its own pick as the president of the country the ruling party must enter in a dialogue with the opposition in order to produce a consensus candidate. Seeing that the ruling AKP had no intention of engaging in such a process, and that the fragile democracy in the country could suffer yet another road accident, I wrote many articles suggesting that rather than electing a president by a Parliament heading for general polls, we should consider amending the Constitution and letting people elect the president directly. Alternatively we could go to early polls and let the new president to be elected by the new Parliament. When we were making these suggestions there were still many months left before the start of the presidential election process on April 16. Parliament had plenty of time to debate and legislate the required constitutional amendments, or to prepare properly for early elections. I was not making these suggestions because I was against the AKP or was supporting the CHP. During the same months, in many articles it was me who bitterly criticized the attitudes of the CHP and even accused it of moving away from principles of social democracy.
AKP's premeditated mistake
However, the ruling AKP closed its eyes and ears to all criticisms and appeals of the opposition and wanted to impose its own pick as president on the country. At the same time it ignored all the sensitivities of this nation as well as the fact that it has a majority of two thirds in Parliament but only 34 percent of electoral support. Only a day before the closure of presidential candidacy period Erdoğan declared who he thought should become Turkey's next president. He did not feel any need to consultat the main opposition party on the issue, although he was well aware that the Constitutional Court could decide in favor of an appeal by the CHP that from the Parliament of 550 at least 367 parliamentarians must be present when presidential vote takes place. The end result... A mismanaged presidential election process has landed Turkey into a comical situation of not being able to elect its president. Had Erdoğan consulted the CHP and had he agreed to produce a consensus candidate, we would long have a president-elect today waiting to takeover the presidency on May 16. And Gül, who we value very much as a friend and a successful minister, would not have been humiliated. But, still, rather than leaving election of the new president to the new Parliament, which will be elected in July, the prime minister and the AKP are insisting on hasty constitutional amendments that would allow direct election of the president. Although I too believe that Turkish people must be able to elect their president directly, such a revolutionary change requires a detailed study and comprehensive amendments in both the constitution and legislation. How can a Parliament that failed to elect a president, and which is going to polls, undertake such a revolutionary constitutional amendment? Insisting on “I have the majority, I will undertake whatever I want in whatever fashion I like” is not a thinking that is compatible with democracy.
http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=72745
JPTF 2007/05/11
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário