Tweet
Today's Zaman, Turkey
Sept 12 2010
Why yes?
IHSAN YILMAZ , Columnist
Let me start with my worst reason. If the ad hominem logic of the
opposition to the constitutional amendment package is correct, then in
a similar way I would be inclined to vote yes even if I did not have
any other reason to do so.
As has become clear, they do not have much to say about the content of
the package but keep repeating that they do not like Recep Tayyip
ErdoÄ?an, thus all their arguments can simply be reduced to their
hostility towards the Justice and Development Party (AK Party). When I
look at the `no' bloc, with a few exceptions, all I see among them are
enemies of democracy, the EU process, transparency and the rule of law
who are afraid that their undeserved privileges will soon end. Most no
supporters are also Ergenekon terrorist organization friendly, support
the military's involvement in politics, belittle the people at every
opportunity just because they do not like their electoral preferences,
resort constantly to demagogy, seem to have a problem with my
religion, do not want to see headscarved women educated at
universities and most importantly they start shouting whenever they
engage in a debate. Even if I had no clue about the content of the
package, by looking at its enemies I would say `yes.' As I have
indicated here in this column for the last seven to eight weeks, as a
professor of political science I am perfectly aware of the amendment
package and am of the firm belief that it will make Turkey more
democratic, more human-rights friendly, more accountable and a more
modern country.
With the proposed changes, the Supreme Council of Judges and
Prosecutors (HSYK) will be become more democratic and instead of just
a few hundred judges, all judges and prosecutors will have a say in
its membership elections. Instead of a mere seven members, it will
have 22 members. The justice minister's powers and role in the council
will be considerably diminished. The HSYK can currently interfere with
any case and replace prosecutors and judges and has interfered in
several important cases that resulted in the acquittal of mafia
members, criminals and gangsters who claimed to protect the state. The
HSYK's decision could not be appealed -- nowhere in the democratic
world is there such an irresponsible use of authority that cannot be
challenged in court. Similarly, the HSYK could simply punish and even
disbar prosecutors and judges at their whim, and the disbarment could
not be appealed. This is what they did to Sacit Kayasu when he wanted
to prepare an indictment against those responsible for the Sept. 12,
1980 coup and to Ferhat Sarıkaya just because he copied and pasted a
witness' claim that the chief of General Staff was behind some illegal
activities and later boasted in a TV interview that he (illegally)
asked the HSYK to sack him. These acts are unbelievable in any normal
democratic country, but somehow `no' supporters expect us to be
content with living in such a scandalous country.
The Constitutional Court will become more democratic. The Parliament
will be able to elect three members to the new court that will now
have 17 members. Knowing that in many countries elected politicians
can elect many more members, this is only a humble step towards
democratization, and it is obvious that the legislature cannot
dominate the court merely by electing three out of the 17 members. But
the opponents desperately want us to believe their lie that these
three members will somehow outnumber the other 14 members.
Individuals will be able to take their human rights cases to the
Constitutional Court. Now, Turkey is the second worst state just after
Russia in terms of its human rights record among the members of the
European Council; with the new structure of the Constitutional Court
and the right of individual application, it is possible that Turkey's
human rights record will improve. These are the changes that the court
itself proposed a few years ago but that the AK Party ignored,
focusing on the economy and other issues. These are the changes that
the non-AK Party-friendly court found not in contradiction to the
democratic state and rule of law when deciding the annulment
application by the Republican People's Party (CHP) deputies. These are
the changes that several European Council and European Union
representatives including the Venice Commission approve of.
Several leftist, liberal and even socialist intellectuals say yes to
the package. Several authors, from Nobel laureate Orhan Pamuk to
Turkish-Armenian Etyen Mahçupyan say yes to the package. Several
artists and actors say yes to the package. Several business tycoons
who are members of Turkish Industrialists and Businessmen's
Association (TÃ`SIAD) say yes to the package. It is crystal clear that
these people would not support a package if it would not make Turkey
more democratic. And all the opposition from CHP's KılıcdaroÄ?lu to the
Nationalist Movement Party's (MHP) Bahçeli could say is that all these
people are dumb. Even just for their impolite and rude attitude, I
would be ashamed to be in the same camp with these arrogant
anti-democrats.
From: A. Papazian
Sept 12 2010
Why yes?
IHSAN YILMAZ , Columnist
Let me start with my worst reason. If the ad hominem logic of the
opposition to the constitutional amendment package is correct, then in
a similar way I would be inclined to vote yes even if I did not have
any other reason to do so.
As has become clear, they do not have much to say about the content of
the package but keep repeating that they do not like Recep Tayyip
ErdoÄ?an, thus all their arguments can simply be reduced to their
hostility towards the Justice and Development Party (AK Party). When I
look at the `no' bloc, with a few exceptions, all I see among them are
enemies of democracy, the EU process, transparency and the rule of law
who are afraid that their undeserved privileges will soon end. Most no
supporters are also Ergenekon terrorist organization friendly, support
the military's involvement in politics, belittle the people at every
opportunity just because they do not like their electoral preferences,
resort constantly to demagogy, seem to have a problem with my
religion, do not want to see headscarved women educated at
universities and most importantly they start shouting whenever they
engage in a debate. Even if I had no clue about the content of the
package, by looking at its enemies I would say `yes.' As I have
indicated here in this column for the last seven to eight weeks, as a
professor of political science I am perfectly aware of the amendment
package and am of the firm belief that it will make Turkey more
democratic, more human-rights friendly, more accountable and a more
modern country.
With the proposed changes, the Supreme Council of Judges and
Prosecutors (HSYK) will be become more democratic and instead of just
a few hundred judges, all judges and prosecutors will have a say in
its membership elections. Instead of a mere seven members, it will
have 22 members. The justice minister's powers and role in the council
will be considerably diminished. The HSYK can currently interfere with
any case and replace prosecutors and judges and has interfered in
several important cases that resulted in the acquittal of mafia
members, criminals and gangsters who claimed to protect the state. The
HSYK's decision could not be appealed -- nowhere in the democratic
world is there such an irresponsible use of authority that cannot be
challenged in court. Similarly, the HSYK could simply punish and even
disbar prosecutors and judges at their whim, and the disbarment could
not be appealed. This is what they did to Sacit Kayasu when he wanted
to prepare an indictment against those responsible for the Sept. 12,
1980 coup and to Ferhat Sarıkaya just because he copied and pasted a
witness' claim that the chief of General Staff was behind some illegal
activities and later boasted in a TV interview that he (illegally)
asked the HSYK to sack him. These acts are unbelievable in any normal
democratic country, but somehow `no' supporters expect us to be
content with living in such a scandalous country.
The Constitutional Court will become more democratic. The Parliament
will be able to elect three members to the new court that will now
have 17 members. Knowing that in many countries elected politicians
can elect many more members, this is only a humble step towards
democratization, and it is obvious that the legislature cannot
dominate the court merely by electing three out of the 17 members. But
the opponents desperately want us to believe their lie that these
three members will somehow outnumber the other 14 members.
Individuals will be able to take their human rights cases to the
Constitutional Court. Now, Turkey is the second worst state just after
Russia in terms of its human rights record among the members of the
European Council; with the new structure of the Constitutional Court
and the right of individual application, it is possible that Turkey's
human rights record will improve. These are the changes that the court
itself proposed a few years ago but that the AK Party ignored,
focusing on the economy and other issues. These are the changes that
the non-AK Party-friendly court found not in contradiction to the
democratic state and rule of law when deciding the annulment
application by the Republican People's Party (CHP) deputies. These are
the changes that several European Council and European Union
representatives including the Venice Commission approve of.
Several leftist, liberal and even socialist intellectuals say yes to
the package. Several authors, from Nobel laureate Orhan Pamuk to
Turkish-Armenian Etyen Mahçupyan say yes to the package. Several
artists and actors say yes to the package. Several business tycoons
who are members of Turkish Industrialists and Businessmen's
Association (TÃ`SIAD) say yes to the package. It is crystal clear that
these people would not support a package if it would not make Turkey
more democratic. And all the opposition from CHP's KılıcdaroÄ?lu to the
Nationalist Movement Party's (MHP) Bahçeli could say is that all these
people are dumb. Even just for their impolite and rude attitude, I
would be ashamed to be in the same camp with these arrogant
anti-democrats.
From: A. Papazian