Yusuf Kanlı

No one was obliged to celebrate the New Year’s EveÉ Some did, some did notÉ Those who celebrated New Year’s Eve celebrated it with their own free will. Some of those did not celebrate because of what is going on in the Gaza Strip; some were "convinced" not to have any celebration because of the peer pressure provoked by zealots like the old tall fundamentalist writer who addressed in Kayseri that night an alternate celebration code-named "Conquest of the hearts;" some did not wish to spend their scarce resources on such a "foreign" celebrationÉ Some people are luckier in finding a reason to celebrate New Year’s Eve. We have three birthdays Ñ including myself Ñ in the family around the end of December and beginning of January. For the past almost three decades we have developed a tradition; the family meets that evening at my place and share some happy moments until early hours of the new year. So we did this yearÉ Neither we, nor other residents of the neighborhood, were of course aware that night that just two buildings away seven youngsters were being poisoned with carbon monoxide and were silently passing awayÉ What a tragedy.

Next morning, we woke up to the sirens of the ambulancesÉ By the time we learned what might have happened Ñ no one had any clear explanation of how the youngsters had lost their lives Ñ live transmission trucks of almost all TV stations, scores of journalists and hundreds of curious residents filled our street within moments. It is difficult not to revolt against untimely death! Seven jewels of their families were goneÉ One was to become a lawyer, the other was to become an economist, the other was dreaming to become a diplomat one dayÉ Gone their dreams, gone themselves, gone the happiness and the most important treasure of their families. None of them could come back even if the entire treasures of world would be spent!

However, earlier that night the upper floor neighbor of the seven youngsters had called police, reported that there was some sort of a gas leak in the building and were hospitalized. An emergency team of the Ankara Gas Authority visited the building, checked the upper floor, detected carbon monoxide in the flat, knocked on the door of the upper and lower flats as well, but although light and music was coming out from the youngsters flat no one was responding to the knock on the door, the team did not feel the need to call police and enter the flat. There was of course gross negligence.

Shameless gaffÉ
What was the cause of the tragic death of seven youngsters? Apart from the negligence of the gas authority team that night, there was apparently faulty construction and use of inappropriate tin pipe connector of the heating device to the chimney (there were reportedly some cracks in the pipe). But, starting from the morning the bodies were discovered and Turkey heard of the tragedy, the Ankara Gas Authority Director General Veysel Karani Demir made a series of gaffs trying to wash his hands of the responsibility with the deaths. He did everything to hide how poor the security measures his administration has taken tough Ankara residents have been paying the highest price for natural gas in Turkey. He tried to escape from questions of the media, first by using the pretext that it was a Friday and he had to leave for Friday prayers Ñ as if prayers were more important than the lives of seven youngsters. Then, he made the worst-ever gaff of recent times and made a slanderous statement. He claimed that some of the youngsters were half nakedÉ

Police had taken photographs of the scene and there were eyewitnesses all proving that seven youngsters were all properly dressed. But, even if they were half or totally naked, what was the use of making such a "disclosure" if the aim was not to imply that "They were infidels; they were engaged in immoral acts; they were reveling; they were punished by God." Indeed, a radical Islamist newspaper was more honest than Demir in its report on the issue. That paper exactly wrote what Demir might have had in his mind when he said "some were half naked."Naturally, because of the national outburst neither Melih Gökçek nor the prime minister could keep Demir in his seatÉ He resignedÉ But, the problem is not the individual DemirÉ The problem is with that mentality in power in Turkey. The problem is the habit of the political administration to appoint to all key positions members of the same Islamist brotherhood, rather than people with competence. Any objection? Just look who was Demir; what are his qualifications; why he was made boss of Ankara gas?

There is a very well established tradition in the Turkish media. If a newspaper reports a scoop or writes about an issue before others, the other papers turn a blind eye on that issue for a while and at a further date cooks up the same rotten dish as if it is a new issue or happening. Rather than indulging into that old habit, I would start with stressing my appreciation for Yavuz Baydar for what appeared to me as the first-ever comprehensive interview with Abdullah Gül ever since he became president. In that interview, Gül talked on many issues, but the most pressing ones were regarding the need to speed up reforms in the country and the relationship between himself and his former political boss and comrade, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.

Gül was optimistic that despite the trauma the closure case caused as well as the Constitutional Court annulment of a set of constitutional amendments the ruling Justice and Development Party, or AKP, had undertaken in collaboration with the opposition Nationalist Movement Party, or MHP, in hopes of legalizing Islamist headgear or turbans at universities, if there was will there ought to be a way of overcoming the existing difficulties. He was stressing that if in all the draft constitution texts prepared over the past years by many parties, bas associations and nongovernmental organizations, or NGOs, the common denominators were enhancing democracy, individual rights, upholding supremacy of law, it must be obvious for everyone that all difficulties Ñ including the perception that the Constitutional Court annulment has made it impossible for the legislature to carry out constitutional amendments Ñ could be overcome if a common will and joint effort could be forged.

Indeed, the president was right. Gül, who served many years as foreign minister, thus as the top diplomat of the country, was putting the requirements of how to revive the constitutional reform drive in a very diplomatic manner and in essence sending a very strong message to his former boss, Prime Minister Erdoğan. For years, many people who have been supporting the reform drive and the European Union bid of the country have been critical of the singlehanded approach of the prime minister and his majoritarian mentality. The prime minister has been refusing all the calls for establishing a national consensus on major issues of the country, particularly on major reform moves. However, obsessed with having an outstanding majority in Parliament and believing that this empowers him to undertake whatever he wishes in the fashion he wishes, the premier was not even talking with the main opposition leader.

Now, Gül is stressing that a "nice understanding and working atmosphere" need to be established in order to revive the reform movement and underlining his conviction that with such an approach Turkey can even rewrite a liberal and democratic constitution.

Let’s hope that this message finds its way and reaches to the prime minister whose staff is so scared of his anger against criticisms that they are providing Erdoğan only the newspaper clippings of articles that are not critical about himself, the government or the AKP.

Friends since 1968
The reply of Gül as regards to a question whether there was a "confrontation atmosphere" between himself of Erdoğan was a demonstration of the importance the president attached to freedom of thought and freedom of press as well though he was careful to underline that "as two close friends since 1968" it was out of the question for him and Erdoğan to be at odds. "I do see as well what’s being written from time to time and consider them as normal because in a country where there is free press, where there is an open society, sometimes such things might be written with the belief that such things did indeed happenÉ" Gül, perhaps, must have some tea with his old friend Erdoğan and explain him as well that instead of yelling to the media or calling boycott of some newspapers, or demanding a publisher to make sure to "write correct stuff or close down that paper," he should try to respect freedom of thought and freedom of media and try to be more transparent.

After all, Turkey is a country transforming to the good and to the bad. While we are becoming a more conservative country and nation on the one hand, on the other we are enhancing our ability to discuss even the taboos of yesterdayÉ Neither the president, nor the prime minister Ñ and of course the military Ñ are beyond limits of criticism in today’s Turkey. It was good to see that at least the president was aware of thisÉ

The bold, tall, angry man, still feeling deceived by the Israel’s outgoing Ehud Olmert, gave a break to his Middle East shuttle, gathered a meeting at the headquarters of his Justice and Development Party, or AKP, and conveyed to the nation his resolution for the 2009: "We will continue in Ankara with Melih Gökçek!" he said. Was there shock among the supporters of the party who gathered despite freezing cold of Ankara in front of the AKP headquarters? NoÉ More or less it was certain, since Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan had a ten-minute closed-door meeting with the incumbent clamorous mayor of Ankara at the VIP lounge of the Esenboğa Airport on the morning of New Year’s Eve, before the premier departed for the first leg of his Middle East shuttle diplomacy, said to have aimed at achieving a ceasefire between Israel and the Hamas administration of the Gaza strip. It was apparent from the wide smile on the face of Gökçek afterwards that the ten-minute meeting that the premier had told him "Don’t worry Melih, you will be again our man in Ankara!"

Thus, what the premier did was nothing more than declaring publicly what was known already. The premier made his calculations and though he might not be happy with the incumbent Gökçek, he wanted to remain the "winner" in Ankara and therefore continue with the clamorous incumbent. Many people will now say the premier just could not risk losing the Ankara mayoral seat and felt compelled to nominate Gökçek for Ankara for a fourth time Ğ such a thing has never ever happened in Turkey. Why should he risk the Ankara seat anyhow? Right, including this writer there is a sizeable minority in Ankara who have been expressing for a long time that they believed Ankara deserved as a mayor a less clamorous, less populist but more appealing, environmentalist and of course ethically and morally correct personality Ğ this does not mean Gökçek is not because he was not so far sentenced of favoritism, bribery, misuse of office, using municipal power to advance family interests and such, though there have been widespread "unverified" speculations against him.

Furthermore, people might love to speculate that Erdoğan was compelled to nominate Gökçek because he was scared of the possibility that Gökçek would run for mayor as an independent candidate should the AKP did not nominate him and thus he would divide the vote and perhaps such a development would lead to election of social democratic Murat Karayalçin as the mayor of Ankara. Why are people in politics? Is not "winning" the aim? Perhaps either incumbent Altındağ Mayor Veysel Tiryaki or Keçiören Mayor Turgut Oltınok would be "more welcome" to the premier as candidate of his party for the seat of Ankara mayor, but why should he take a risk if three separate public opinion polls showed that Ğ thanks to massive coal and foodstuff package donations continuing since last summer Ğ Gökçek was in the lead with almost eight percentage points and unless something drastic happens his victory is almost a foregone conclusion?

Culture of allegiance
It must be up to the Ankara residents to decide what is important for them, and what they expect from their mayor. If a few packs of free coal, some sacks of free rice, a few liters of free cooking oil are far more important than the 80-year-old or even older chestnut tree on the Protocol Highway, why should we be bothered with who becomes the Ankara mayor?

What did the premier say yesterday? He said the AKP government and its municipalities were making coal and foodstuff donations because of their commitment to the social state. "We are not making these donations only during election times; we are doing these out of our commitment to social state."

That is what the premier and his men do not understand. No one is against state and municipal support for the needy but such assistance should be limited and should not lead to nourishing a beggar culture in the society. If a state wants to be a social state it must rather generate jobs and make sure that people work, earn and lead a respectable living rather than converting masses into beggars.

But, of course if the aim is to develop a culture of allegiance rather than a free and democratic society of course there is need to nourish an allegiance society, an allegiance media and allegiance politiciansÉ

One of the leading young actors of the country was participating in a magazine talk show program. He was talking about the success of a sitcom that was continuing on a private television channel for the past six years.

“Turkey is growing more and more conservative every year. The Turkey our sitcom started was not the Turkey of today. Thus, it is the success of our scriptwriter who has been transforming our sitcom according to the changes in the society. Every season, she successfully creates an idol character. That is why our sitcom is still watched by so many people…”

That was of course a confession... The society is becoming more and more conservative and at least some of the intellectuals of the country have given up their intellectual responsibility of being a step ahead of the society, but instead for the sake of getting some more applause or some more TV viewers, they have preferred to go as much conservative as the society goes. Naturally progress of a society cannot be achieved with such a mentality. The only consolation is the fact that there are some honest intellectuals who, even though we might not be happy with what they are doing, are continuing to be “different” than the majority, the ordinary.

An example? The intellectual initiative to apologize for the 1915 events. We share it or not or we may even find it awkwardly provocative, untimely and even dangerous, we have to salute such initiatives as a courageous fulfillment of the “to be a step ahead of the society” duty of intellectuals that may ignite the spark of change in a society. That is perhaps why even though we might not be so happy with whatever said or thought or expressed, free speech, freedom of expression, freedom of thought are so important in a democratic society.

Erdoğan’s Kurdish message

How should we write the traditional New Day festival celebrated in Anatolia, Iran and in a vast geography in central and Caucasian Asia? Should we write it with a W and say Newroz or with a V and call it Nevroz? What is the difference? Until very recently writing the word with a W would land one in a lengthy judicial process and he would face separatist accusations because there was no W in the Turkish alphabet and using W would be taken as a demonstration of support for the separatist Kurdistan Workers Party terrorist gang. But the ban on the use of W was not limited to the Newroz word. After the Turkish Daily News joined the Doğan media group, a new company was established: Doğan Daily News. The company could not be registered because of the W in its name and had to change the company s title to Doğan Daily Nevs. A tragicomedy of those years during which many books were banned, many people were prosecuted on grounds that they used none-Turkish characters.

That phobia apparently came to an end nowadays. The state-owned Turkish Radio and Television Corporation, TRT, will be launching today its TRT Şeş, a 24-hour Kurdish language TV channel. Inauguration of the channel, which has been on air for test broadcasts for a while, will be made today with a statement by Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in which he will be saying in Kurdish “TRT Şeş bi xw?r be” (May TRT6 be for the good). That short sentence of Erdoğan will be an apology, as well as a confession for both the oppression on the Kurdish language and the acute phobia that continued in this land that acknowledgment of differences would result in the disintegration of the nation and the state. It is as well a promising start of a new era which if utilized well and if this new channel is not used for sheer propaganda, Turkey may finally start embracing fully all the founding elements of the Turkish state.

Gül failed in sincerity

President Abdullah Gül confessed in making an appointment to the presidency of the Istanbul University when rather than Professor Ali Akyüz, the candidate who received the most votes in an election at the university and who is known with his secularist views, he preferred to appoint Professor Yunus Söylet, the architect of the “freedom to turban” petition and the family doctor of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.

Ankara is very much angered with Israel and believes that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was not "honest" during more than five hours of official talks in Ankara with President Abdullah Gül and Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. There is difficulty in understanding and indeed a deep disappointment with learning that Olmert Ñ who according to what has already been revealed in the Israeli media Ñ had approved the operation on the Gaza Strip back on a Dec. 18 evening during a meeting with hardliner Defense Minister Ehud Barak at the military headquarters in Tel Aviv while visiting Ankara on Dec. 22, he told Turkish leaders that "I will not let a humanitarian crisis in Gaza."

There is, of course, discrepancy in between what the Israeli prime minister wanted to say and what the Turkish leaders wanted to hear. According to Israeli Ambassador Gabby Levy, Turkish leaders were very much occupied with the continued Israeli blockade of the Gaza Strip, they wanted Israel to allow humanitarian aid convoys to enter the Hamas-ruled enclave and Olmert promised them that "I will make every effort to prevent a humanitarian crisis in Gaza," and because of that pledge, despite the operation was still continuing "has ordered that several border crossings into Gaza be opened for the transfer of vitally-needed goods," and allowed scores of trucks enter the area.

"Humanitarian aid has been moving into the Gaza as Olmert pledged to the Turkish leaders," the ambassador told me Monday on telephone, stressing that at Ankara talks there was no discussion at all on the upcoming Israeli operation on Gaza. Indeed, according to some unconfirmed reports earlier in December, Israel has contacted Ankara and urged its good offices to convince Hamas to extend the ceasefire, but Turkish officials balked undertaking such a role at the time.

A while later, on Dec. 15, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas sent a special envoy to Ankara, Azzam Najeeb Al-Ahmad Ñ who was the deputy of Hamas Premier Ismail Hanniya during the unity government. The Palestinian special envoy met with Ahmet Davutoğlu, the Foreign Policy adviser of Erdoğan and conveyed a message of Abbas to President Gül. According to Palestinian Ambassador Nabil Maarouf has said at those meetings the special envoy of Abbas requested Turkey first to convince Hamas extend the truce and prevent Israel using Hamas refusal to extend the ceasefire as a pretext to reoccupy Gaza Strip; second, to continue contributing to the reconciliation efforts between the Palestinian authority and the Hamas ruling Gaza; and third, to continue playing its facilitating role in peace efforts between Israel and Syria, as well as between Israel and Egypt.

Thus, although Ankara pretended as if it was fooled by Olmert, indeed there were appeals from both Israel and the Palestinian authority for Ankara’s good offices to help convince Hamas extend the truce and avoid a military escalation which Israel claims was required by its own self defense and even Palestinian President Abbas charges that the intransigence and refusal of Hamas to extend the truce was used by the Israelis as a pretext of the inhumane aerial bombardment of Gaze Strip.

Back to square one
Though the Gaza catastrophe could not be avoided Ñ and hopefully situation will not become even worst with an Israeli land operation Ñ but soon there will be a need for stepped up mediation efforts first for a containment of the fire and then for the extension of the truce and at a later stage for the resumption of the peacemaking efforts. Israeli Ambassador Levy was of the opinion yesterday that the halt declared in Israel-Syria mediation was a "product of the crisis atmosphere" and that he believed soon there will be resumption again. Palestinian Ambassador Maarouf was stressing that the Palestinian Authority wanted Ankara play a more active role and contribute to both Israel-Syria and Israel-Egypt pace moves. Hamas, on the other hand, has been claiming that Egypt let them down by not opening the border gates and providing humanitarian assistance in the latest crisis.

So, romanticism is good, but now it is time for realism and Turkey rather than emotional outbursts must concentrate on what it can do to contribute to the cause of peace if it really intends to be a regional powerÉ

Irrespective of whether they consider the Islamist Hamas as a terrorist organization or a resistance movement, most Turks were appalled with the indiscriminate attacks and disproportionate use of force by Israel that killed hundreds of civilian Palestinians and served a very severe blow to peace efforts. We are mourning today for all those civilian victims of that brutal Israeli state terrorism on civilian Palestinians. Since the start of the Israeli aerial pounding of the Gaza Strip, Turkish leaders have been deploring the indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks: demanding an immediate ceasefire, calling for the opening of border crossings between Israel and the Gaza and urging Israel allow international assistance reach to the Palestinian people. The same appeals were made as well in an "unbinding" Security Council resolution.

President Abdullah Gül, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Foreign Minister Ali Babacan have been in contact with world leaders. Erdoğan has called on the U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and demanded the United Nations play an active role in providing urgent and immediate humanitarian assistance to the desperate people of the Gaza Strip.

Israel, however, has been reiterating that Hamas is a terrorist organization; has fired many missiles on Israeli territories over the past weeks and that Israeli action was one in self defense, and Israel was determined to continue exercising its "action of self defense" as long as the security objective of Israelis required. Every country, of course, has the right to self defense. As a country which has suffered so much over the past decades from terrorism, Turkey knows far better than anyone else the value and capability of being able to engage in acts of self defense. It is, at least for this writer, beyond any doubt that Hamas is a terrorist organization. However, there is the other side of the coin as well.

Self defense and right to live
Is it possible to accept pounding of civilian residential Palestinian settlements by Israeli planes with the pretext of hunting Hamas militants firing rockets on Israeli territory? Israel has been stressing that anyone hosting in his home Palestinian militants were terrorists as well and thus the Jewish state has the right to attack. Is this mentality different at all with the Nazi mentality which was punishing the Germans trying to hide Jewish people and thus save their lives?

Furthermore, can anyone deny any people the right to resist occupation and continued applications of state terrorism on a people under occupation. Israel may say it ended its occupation of some Palestinian lands. Right, but what is the difference between occupation and blockading a territory and depriving an entire population from basic needs?

Can the world community accept total annihilation of the right to live Ñ the most sacred one of the human rights Ñ of the Palestinian people because a terrorist organization is resisting to Israeli occupation, blockade or gross violation of the rights of the Palestinian people for the sake of providing security of the Israelis? This is very much like a chicken and egg problem. Is Hamas a product of the Israeli state aggression on the peoples of the Palestinian territories or are the Israelis engaged in a legitimate right of self defense because of the terrorist attacks waged from the Palestinian territories on the Israeli territory?

Whichever way it is, civilian Israelis and Palestinians are being victimized of either Hamas terrorism or Israel’s state terrorism.

The vicious cycle of violence affecting the lives of both the Israeli and Palestinian people must be brought to an end. The humanitarian needs of the people of Gaza must be urgently addressed. Even this latest flare-up of violence must be taken as a demonstration of the urgency of the Israeli and the Palestinian leadership to concentrate more vigilantly to a compromise settlement of this perennial problem which must provide a two-state resolution: An Israeli state and a Palestinian state living side by side with a secure Israel.

Israel must understand that it will have to accept all the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people including their right to have their own state with the old city part of Jerusalem as its capital while Palestinians must accommodate themselves to the reality of the Israeli state.

About two weeks ago, first the Middle East Newsline reported a short story. Soon after, the World Tribune newspaper ran a lengthier article based on the Middle East Newsline report. According to these publications, Iraq and Turkey have been discussing a plan to destroy the northern Iraqi presence of the outlawed Kurdish Workers Party, or PKK, separatist, terrorist gang.

Those two reports were stressing that "officials" told them that the three-phased plan was meant to be implemented with the autonomous Kurdish administration in northern Iraq. Furthermore, these reports were claiming that over the last three months, Turkey has been discussing anti-PKK efforts with both the government in Baghdad and the Kurdish regional government and that the plan was drafted by Ankara's special envoy Murat Özçelik as a product of the dialogue with neighboring Iraq.While diplomatic correspondents were trying to dig out from the Foreign Ministry some further details about the alleged Turkish-Iraqi plan to terminate the PKK presence in northern Iraq, CNNTürk’s Osman Sert travelled to Baghdad and last week ran an interview with Iraqi President Jalal Talabani - also a Kurdish factional leader. It was an excellent interview for which Sert must be appreciated.In that interview, Talabani was providing some details of the plan and thus we realize that this was not a plan devised by Özçelik, but rather one suggested by the Iraqi president to Turkey at contacts with Özçelik. Accordingly the first phase would be to restrict mobility of the PKK in northern Iraq; isolate it on the mountains; cut its food and other supplies; and stop Iraq territories be used in attacks by the gang on neighboring countries... Accordingly, the local northern Iraqi administration led by Massoud Barzanşi would declare PKK as an "outlawed" organization - we were told that Talabani opposes the PKK being declared as a terrorist organization because if PKK is declared a terrorist gang, contacts with it would not be possible.The next step would be to declare that the PKK has become a threat to the Kurdish population and the gang would be asked to declare a ceasefire and lay arms.What’s next?According to what Talabani told the CNN-Türk, the Iraqi president was of the opinion that the era of "armed struggle" must come to an end and instead dialogue and diplomacy must be given a chance.Those members of the PKK who give up arms would be convinced to return Turkey. But, Talabani stressed that no one should expect them accept to return Turkey to spend years in Turkish prisons. Turkey must make arrangements allowing the terrorists who lay arms return to their homes without even being questioned. Then, we learn that this issue was indeed discussed when Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan visited Baghdad recently and will be on the agenda of President Abdullah Gül - who postponed a trip this month because of a problem in his ears that forced his doctors to temporarily prohibit him air travel - when he travels to Iraq around Jan. 20.Since the 1984 start of PKK’s violent separatist campaign the issue of amnesty has been coming on the agenda of the country from time to time but due to the immense social trauma the nation has been suffering because of the separatist terrorism-related violence no political administration dared to take such a step and instead resources of the country were wasted with "repentance" or "return home" laws - which were all semi amnesties - that produced no concrete result. If Turkey declares now a new "repentance" or "return home law" it will not serve the purpose of bringing down the terrorists from the mountains of Turkey or northern Iraq.A full-fledged amnesty, on the other hand, cannot be undertaken as long as violence continues and the Turkish society through methods of public diplomacy was convinced that an amnesty is in the best national interest. However, it must be seen by everyone as well that at one point Turkey must declare an amnesty and indulge into a comprehensive program - which should go further than a Kurdish TV channel - to eliminate the root causes of the complaşints of the Kurdish population on the one hand and eradicate the scars of the social trauma this nation has been suffering from since 1984 on the other. PKK stopping its attacks would help. Government taking some real reform steps would help. And perhaps gradually, but with some bold moves we can overcome the problem and leave behind this sad period.

People with some brains were puzzled discovering a while ago that in between the 2007 parliamentary elections and disclosure of the electoral lists earlier this month, that is within an 18-month period, the number of Turks eligible to vote increased in an incomprehensible manner by around 6 million. Yes, at least in some parts of the country there is still a very high birth rate, but Turks are not a rabbit nation to multiply that fast. Discussions on the issue was finally "resolved" this week with a statement of the Supreme Electoral Council Ñ which under present Turkish laws has the status of a high court and its decisions are final Ñ that the 6 million increase compared to the 2007 electoral lists in the number of eligible voters was "normal" as some 2 million of the "new voters" were the 18-year-old youngsters who would be voting for the first time, while the remaining 4 million were people who somehow were not registered in previous electoral listsÉ

Despite this, "there is no abnormality in electoral lists" statement of the electoral board, however, "exceptional" complaints are still being made according to the electoral lists several hundred people were living at an address which has been a poultry-house, or at an empty lot or at a still under construction building.

Why do we have this controversy?

For the first time in the history of the republic, despite constitutional stipulations that elections are under judicial guarantee and supervision and in total contrast with past practices, rather than preparing the electoral lists itself the electoral board signed a contract with the Turkish Statistical Institution, or TÜİK, and assigned TÜİK to prepare electoral lists based on the electronic address-based registration records. Thus, a constitutional duty entrusted on the electoral board was handed over to the TÜİK, an agency affiliated to the political administration and eventually we landed in the present mess. The issue, which is a clear violation of separation of powers principle, is now referred to the Council of State by several opposition parties. If the Council of State annuls the protocol between the electoral board and TÜİK, we will end up having no electoral lists at all. Then, a new process of updating the electoral lists of the 2007 elections will have to be undertaken. Unfortunately, many people have started smelling an unprecedented degree of foul play regarding the upcoming electionsÉ

Tragicomedy at the Constitutional Court

Another decision adopted by the Supreme Electoral Board was the one invalidating a law which was already approved by the Constitutional Court. The law was regarding disbanding of 862 municipalities on grounds that population in those regions shrunk below the 2,000 limit. The electoral board said those of the 862 municipalities who opened court cases against that law could participate in the upcoming March local polls and elect new mayors.

Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan reacted to the electoral board decision with a complaint accusing the electoral board of trying to act as if it has become a second constitutional court, while Chief Judge Haşim Kılıç of the Constitutional Court came up with a statement stressing that the issue was taken up by the court and with a majority decision the electoral board decision was found inappropriate.

That statement of Kılıç opened the second episode of the tragicomedy when eight members of the 11-member Constitutional Court issued a written statement declaring that the High Court did not meet on that issue, no decision was put to vote of top judges and that the statement of Kılıç did not reflect the majority view of the high court judges.

Now, as if the electoral lists fiasco was not enough, the country is faced with a very awkward situation. The chief judge of the Constitutional Court Ñ who made fame with his conservative views ever since he was made a member of the high court by late President Turgut Özal Ñ is not only aligning in criticizing the electoral board decision with the head of the political administration of the country, but he as well misled the nation with a rather unfortunate statement that he implied supported by majority of top judges, but proved to have been making a not so accurate statement with the statement of eight of the total 11 members of the top court that the remarks of the top judge did not reflect their views.

If the top judge of a country is unreliable, who might be reliable?