Enis Berberoglu: How Turkey can take measures against sect economy?
Güncelleme Tarihi:
First of all, let us discuss the sense behind this question: Is a measure needed to be taken? It would be normal to oppose the economic growth and strengthening of (religious) sects if it is obvious that these sects are a threat to the regime. But, if you assess these sects as part of civil society, then naturally this question will have little meaning for you.
The warning sent by the newly appointed chief of Turkish General Staff on these sects is clear. Of course we cannot know what advice the military gave to legal platforms such as the National Security Council about sects in the country.
But we can remember the worst of these measures climaxing on Feb. 28, when the military showed their might to the Islamist-rooted Welfare Party and imposed a military embargo on those companies which it saw as bearing some relation to the Welfare Party.
Did the military do the right thing? As I wrote then, this initiative was wrong for the following reasons;
1- The companies were being penalized not for having committing a crime during their business operations.
2- But they were being accused of transferring the profits from these businesses to finance some individuals and certain acts.
Under these circumstances; it was obliged to react against the owner of the company, instead of the company itself, not under the laws set out by the Trade Practices Act, but those set out by the Turkish Penal Code.
Consequently, it was not only wrong to restrict the sect companies participation in military tenders, but it goes against the public interest.
That is because the companies excluded were in a position to sell the same goods or provide the same services for less.
The lack of competition could stand international bidders in a more comfortable position in the tenders.
In summary, enforcing economic rules equally, regardless of it being a sect company or not, is the best and only way... This does not mean that sect companies should be allowed to collect money and simply inform market regulators by means of ordinary IOUs. (Otherwise, we could see a repeat of the Islamist bankers’ catastrophe!)
The restrictions and controls implemented for all companies' balance-sheets are clearly determined.
A company cannot be said to be directly responsible for the private acts of its owners, once they have pocketed the company profits.
The government's security forces and prosecutors monitor the rest of the process.