Yusuf Kanlı

Letters from readers have underlined the need to elaborate a little bit on the judicial immunity enjoyed by parliamentarians as well as the law on the procedures of trial of civil servants. Though Turkey neither has a socialist system of governance nor have I any intention of criticizing socialism, I have to underline that indeed very much like the situation described in the famous "Animal Farm" novel of George Orwell in this country "all animals are equal but some are definitely more equal than others." In a country where a young hungry boy stealing a loaf of bread can land himself in prison, the "more equals" of the country practically get away with any crime, except in flagrante delicto, that is unless captured red-handed. Indeed, the only time we saw a parliamentarian detained by police was in the 1989 case of a murder of a deputy from Siirt (Abdürrezzak Ceylan) by yet another deputy from Siirt (İdris Arıkan).

The Article 83 of the current Turkish Constitution regulates parliamentary immunity. The first paragraph of the article stresses that "Members of the Turkish Grand National Assembly shall not be liable for their votes and statements concerning parliamentary functions, for the views they express before the Assembly, or unless the Assembly decides otherwise on the proposal of the Bureau for that sitting, for repeating or revealing these outside the Assembly." Furthermore, the second paragraph of the same article clearly underlines that a parliamentarian "who is alleged to have committed an offence before or after election," shall not be arrested, interrogated, detained or tried unless the Assembly decides otherwise.

Are there any exceptions? Yes, there is one. The article underlines that "this provision shall not apply in cases where a member is caught in the act of committing a crime punishable by a heavy penalty and in cases subject to Article 14 of the Constitution if an investigation has been initiated before the election. However, in such situations the competent authority shall notify the Turkish Grand National Assembly immediately and directly." The constitutional Article 14 referred to in the above paragraph, on the other hand, as is amended in October 2001, stresses that "None of the rights and freedoms embodied in the Constitution shall be exercised with the aim of violating the indivisible integrity of the state with its territory and nation, and endangering the existence of the democratic and secular order of the Turkish Republic based upon human rights."

Before elaborating further, let me clarify the constitutional stipulations regarding the judicial immunity or "non-accountability" granted to the president. Article 105 of the constitution clearly underlines that except impeachment by an absolute majority of Parliament on grounds of high treason demanded by at least one third of parliamentarians, the president cannot be held accountable for his decisions, actions or decrees he signed while in office. The non-accountability of the president, therefore is limited to his term in office and to his duties as president and definitely does not provide a wide judicial immunity like the one granted to parliamentarians.

Non-accountability of the president

One last point, besides the judicial immunity granted to deputies and the non-accountability of the president, under the law on procedures of trial of public servants, unless an immediate senior authorizes the trial of a public servant s/he cannot be brought to court. This principle provides a very strong shield of undeclared judicial immunity to civilian and military public servants and thus places them as well in the group of "more equal." In the latest Lighthouse charity fund scandal, for example, the Radio and Television Supreme Board chief could not be taken to court so far because of the refusal of the related minister to authorize his questioning. There are many such examples.

Particularly since 1997 there has been repeated efforts to eradicate judicial immunities, however, even tough back in 2002 Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan committed himself to work for the "restriction" of immunities including those enjoyed by public servants, no concrete action has so far been taken on the issue. One reason might be the fact that, including ones against Erdoğan himself, there are various allegations and investigations against scores of parliamentarians and the premier and his men are scared of being "hunted" by the prosecutors should they put down their constitutional immunity shield. For transparent and good governance, however, Turkey is obliged to convert the "more equals" into plain equals.

The Court of Appeals made such a verdict that the team of prosecutors probing the so-called "Ergenekon gang" may soon find themselves without any credible evidence in the glossy volumes of indictments that were largely constructed on decoding telephone conversations between the alleged suspects. Obviously, as is the case in democracies respecting the supremacy of law, there are established procedures in Turkey as well regarding how a judicial investigation can be launched and carried out; how a court can handle a case; the rights of the detained or the accused; and of course under the basic "presumption of innocence" principle, no one can be condemned as guilty of any crime unless sentenced by a court.

Over the past almost two years, in 12 separate waves, houses and offices of hundreds of individuals were raided Ğ including the residences of former chief prosecutor Sabih Kanadoğlu of the Court of Appeals and Association for Supporting Contemporary Life, or ÇYDD, chairperson Professor Türkan Saylan, who we lost last week after an exemplary 74-year life defending the modern Republic, gender equality and girls' education rights, and rebelling against illiteracy, primitivism and radicalism Ğ by police on orders of the so-called Ergenekon prosecutors; over 100 people were detained, scores were arrested and many people were kept behind bars for months, some of them well over one year, without an official charge brought against them.

The backbone of that operation was information obtained by the police intelligence through authorized, and perhaps, unauthorized, phone taps and environmental listening.

All through the past two years, many people respecting the supremacy of law and equality of all in front of the law, including this writer, were critical of the way the Ergenekon probe was being conducted and complaining of gross violation of established procedures as well as international norms of law.

Thus, the detained and arrested people within the scope of the probe were subjected to a summary execution on the front pages or on TV screens in the media in allegiance with the government. They were accused. Declared guilty. Sentenced. Their penalties were being executed swiftly. Yet, most of the detained or arrested were not even officially charged with any wrongdoing.

Political vendetta

When people like this writer were crying that not only the fundamental "presumption of innocence" principle of contemporary law was violated but individual rights of people were violated with the servicing to the allegiant media the most discreet and sacred conversations between wife and husband, mother and child, between lovers or between bosses, editors and their staff, the allegiant media was attacking us of trying to defend the "gang" members by concentrating on "possible violation of procedures" and ignoring the "crimes exposed." The procedures of investigation or of trial, however, are the backbone of the functioning of the judicial system; otherwise a country may land in a "judicial-political tyranny" if and when a political administration can bend the laws to suit its political designs. Still, the allegiant media continued publishing the details of the ongoing investigation and sections of the indictments in a manner to suit the political purpose of the authorities that serviced those documents to them in contravention of the laws.

Now, for a second time the Court of Appeals made a verdict in examining a case in which several people were sentenced for decoding telephone conversations provided sufficient evidence of the existence of a gang and membership in a gang established with the aim and intention of forgery. The Court of Appeals ruled against the sentencing of the lower court stressing that unless supported by concrete evidence, a person cannot be sentenced taking into account only the decoding of telephone conversations because telephone decoding could only be "secondary evidence" under the Turkish legal system. Naturally, this verdict will not be taken into account by the Ergenekon prosecutors and the Ergenekon case will continue, as will the detentions and arrests within its scope.

But, whatever the verdict of that case, unless the secondary evidence, that is decoding of phone tapings, is supported with hard evidence, which we could not see anything substantial to that end so far, eventually the Ergenekon verdict will be annulled by the Court of Appeals. Why this suffering then?

So unfortunate, is it not? It is nothing more than a waste of time and energy. Can President Abdullah Gül be brought to court and tried in connection with the former Welfare Party’s missing 1 trillion lira case? Does the Constitution allow presidents to be questioned and indeed tried by a court for an accusation other than treason against the state? Can a verdict by an Ankara district court for the trial of Gül in connection with the RP’s missing 1 trillion lira case insult the presidency or demonstrate that everyone is equal in front of the law and that even presidents can be tried for petty crimes? Turkey is definitely passing through some very interesting times. Many people are trying to concentrate nowadays on the prospects of resolving the Kurdish issue through a new civilian initiative. There appears to be political will. The military is apparently supporting the government’s efforts. On the other hand, people supporting Turkey’s European Union bid are very concerned that despite all the efforts of the Czech presidency, its term might come to an end without even opening one chapter.

Nicolas Sarkozy of France and Angela Merkel of Germany, the two most outstanding "friends" of Turkey among the leaders of the EU countries, have started re-trumpeting their "privileged partnership" obsessive offer for Turkey rather than full membership. Developments in Cyprus and around the Cyprus problem require increased attention and a reaffirmation for a negotiated settlement mutually acceptable for the two peoples of the eastern Mediterranean island. Yet, rather than focusing more on these and similar other important issues, Turkey is in discussion about whether the president of the country can be brought to court to give an account of the missing 1 trillion liras of the former RP.

Some are more equal

To put it straight, it is of course unthinkable to grant any individual in a modern democracy a special and privileged position in front of law. The constitution clearly underlines the supremacy of law and equality of all citizens in front of law. Yet, contrary to that general and very important principle that everyone must be equal in front of law, we have layers of privileged classes. Unfortunately, everyone is equal, but some are more equal. Turkey must reconsider the limits of immunity.

One is the parliamentarians and ministers. They are enjoying a very high degree of judicial immunity, with some exceptions like committing crimes against the state before being elected to Parliament. In that context, nowadays we have the controversy of the Democratic Society Party, or DTP, deputies. If they continue to go to court and testify in connection with the charges that they were involved in separatism before being elected to Parliament, can they be forcefully taken by police for an interrogation by a prosecutor? The legislative framework allows such a practice, but the country is discussing for some time whether undertaking such a move be politically correct at a time when Turkey is pondering a new Kurdish initiative.

Another group is the civil servants. Under current laws on the prosecution of civil servants, unless authorization from the immediate superior, often the minister, is obtained a senior civil servant cannot be brought to court. Then, we have the military. Not only is the same law on the prosecution of public applied there, members of the military can be tried in military courts for crimes they commit while serving in military. Judges and prosecutors, for example, can be tried only if they are referred to the Judges and Prosecutors High Board by the justice minister. This list can be extended further. What is clear is that in this country, unfortunately, the principle of equality of all in front of law is just a fairy tale applicable only to ordinary citizens.

Yet, the president of the Republic has no immunity whatsoever under the current Constitution for crimes s/he might have committed or alleged to have committed before becoming the president while for the period in office s/he can be prosecuted by the high court only with the allegation of treason against the state and if Parliament referred s/he to the high court with a qualified vote.

Irrespective whether Gül is guilty, taking the president to court on a petty charge, on the other hand, will definitely hurt the reputation of the presidential office. Can we not wait until Gül completes his term in office and then take him to court? To what purpose will it serve to stir up such a controversy and hurt the presidency now? Why are we wasting our precious time?

Great expectations have been created once again as if there will be a magical resolution to the Kurdish problem tomorrow. If these great expectations, created partly by the president and the ruling Justice and Development Party, or AKP, and some leading writers in the Turkish media, are not moderated and replaced with some attainable targets, however, they may soon cause the country great disappointment that may further complicate the already very complicated problem. Some pundits have started calling for an undeclared "cease-fire" by the separatist Kurdistan Workers’ Party, or PKK, and the Turkish military. Some are even calling for the start of a "discreet dialogue" between the Turkish state and the separatist gang immediately after "both sides" silenced their guns.

Who are the two sides?

Do we indeed have "two sides" in this problem? Is the PKK a terrorist gang or a guerilla force with some legitimacy that we can consider as a "side" that has opened some sort of a "war" on the Turkish state? Who are those "two sides" required to "silence their guns" simultaneously so that a "political way out" can be implemented to resolve the Kurdish problem? Are the some 2.5 million voters who voted for the pro-PKK Democratic Society Party, or DTP, the "other side" that the Turkish state should consider as a counterpart? If so, are the DTP, or the DTP mayors elected in some 100 southeastern cities, towns and districts, the representatives of the "other side" that the Turkish state should engage in discreet dialogue? Or, has Turkey accepted the recent suggestion by a PKK chieftain that the Turkish state should engage in a dialogue with a group of "wise men"? How will that group of "wise men" be composed?

Obviously finding a political way out or bringing an end through "civilian initiatives" to the almost 30 years of the separatist campaign that has claimed almost 40,000 lives since 1984 cannot be opposed by anyone aspiring to see an end to the bloodshed in this country. Definitely, irrespective of whether the son was lost on the mountain fighting with the government forces or lost in the fight against the terrorists, they are all our sons, and mothers feel the same pain for their lost sons. This pain must be stopped.

The domestic and external conditions might also be ripe for a civilian initiative to end the bloodshed. The government might have political will for such an undertaking and there might be a consensus between the government and the Turkish military that some non-military measures should be applied. But what miracle prescription do we have to believe that a civilian initiative can indeed succeed? Is not there a danger that while trying to resolve the problem through civilian means we may end up providing legitimacy to the separatist gang and face a bigger and more serious separatist threat tomorrow?

Obviously, the Kurdish problem is nothing new. Putting an end to it through only military measures may help only to contain it for some time until it flares up one day again. It is a must to find a resolution that while on one hand should meet the expectations of the ethnic Turkish population of the country and thus dry the breeding ground of the PKK, while on the other hand should not compromise the country’s national and territorial integrity.

Where to start?

But, where Turkey should start? Shall we start by scrapping the gigantic "How happy is the one who calls himself a Turk" inscriptions on the mountains overlooking some cities of the Southeast? Or, shall we put some more prisoners in the İmrali prison and bring an end to the solitude of PKK chieftain Abdullah Öcalan, serving an enforced life term. Or, shall we open a second Kurdish channel on the state-owned TRT? What?

Of course silencing the arms should be the first move. If the guns are silenced, it will become easier to consider moves that, if we suggested them today, could land us in prison on charges of violating the anti-terror law. But, how can guns be stopped?

Obviously, the move must come from the PKK itself. The prerequisite of success of any civilian initiative in resolving the Kurdish problem is the PKK silencing its guns unconditionally and without awaiting reciprocity from the Turkish military. The military cannot enter a deal with a group of terrorists, but why should it fire if there is no threat?

Can the PKK undertake that move?

On one hand, the Democratic Left Party, or DSP, elected Masum Türker last week to replace Zeki Sezer as its chairman, while on the other hand, the center-right Democrat Party, or DP, replaced Süleyman Soylu with a veteran Hüsamettin Cindoruk as its chairman. It both parties what happened indeed was beyond a simple change in leadership. In the DP the contest for leadership was in a way a late revanche to the 2003 convention of the former True Path Party, or DYP, that brought Tansu Çiller to the helm of the party after party leadership was vacated with Süleyman Demirel becoming the ninth president of the country. At the time Demirel had said he would not go to the presidential office with the government under one arm and the party under the other, an obvious reference to what late Turgut Özal did, and tried to stay away, at least publicly, in the contest in the DYP to pick a successor for him as party leader. It was obvious for many people that Demirel wanted Hüsamettin Cindoruk to be his successor as party leader. Cindoruk did not want to post at the time, Demirel loyalists divided between candidates Köksal Toptan and İsmet Sezgin, and Tansu Çiller became the new party leader. At the DP convention, the race was between Cindoruk, supported by Demirel as well as former Motherland Party, or ANAP, leader Mesut Yılmaz, and Soylu, supported by Çiller and the loyalists of the Fethullah Gülen movement.

Cindoruk was contesting on a platform stressing the need for unity in the center-right, while Soylu was stressing commitment to democracy, consolidation of civilian rule and accusing indirectly both Cindoruk and Demirel of being supporters of military coups and the so-called "Ergenekon gang" accused in two thick volumes of indictments of trying to plot a military takeover to oust the Islamist Justice and Development Party, or AKP, administration.

It was obvious that the AKP was scared that the downward trend in its popularity, which was demonstrated with the more than 8 percentage point decrease to 38 percent from the previous 47 percent, might be accelerated if a credible center-right political alternative emerged on the political spectrum of the country. Indeed, the more Cindoruk stressed the need to forge unity in center-right and declared that if elected he would establish a commission which would speedily engage in talks with other center-right parties with the aim and intention of establishing a unity for the best interests of democratic and secular republic the attacks in the conservative and Islamist media in allegiance with the AKP increased.

Soon after he was elected as new DP leader, Cindoruk received a call from the ANAP leader and the two have agreed to meet immediately after the May 20 foundation anniversary of ANAP and discuss merger of the two parties.

Will Cindoruk succeed in forging a united center-right that could offer fresh hopes to the Turkish electorate? Can that united center-right be an alternative to the AKP? What will be the impact of Abdullatif Çener’s efforts to establish a new party on Cindoruk’s efforts?

Türker takeover in DSP

For the first time since the DSP was established by Rahşan Ecevit in 1985, at a time when her husband, the legendary leader of Turkish left, was still banned from active party politics, not an Ecevit or someone supported by Rahşan Ecevit, but a Masum Türker who contested against 15 other candidates, including former Ecevit-picked party leader Zeki Sezer and Rahşan Ecevit’s candidate, Alemdar Yalçın, became the new leader of the party.

It can be argued that Türker’s election indeed marked the start of the DSP converting itself from an Ecevit fan club into a full-fledged political party. It can as well be argued that if the election of Türker as party leader despite opposition to him by Rahşan Ecevit was evidence of not only her faded influence on the party, but also an indication that the DSP has completed its life cycle and soon will become history.

However, for most people, as Deniz Baykal is considered for the Republican People’s Party, or CHP, Rahşan Ecevit has always been the greatest obstacle for the DSP’s success and that if Turker’s election is a demonstration that she is finally "out" of the DSP Ğ can no longer manipulate the party according to her political designs Ğ perhaps the DSP may emerge as the new hope for Turkish nationalist-left.

Still, bringing back to life a dead DSP, making it a hope of the masses once again, will be no easy task for Türker and his team.

The first "terrorist" of her sort was the young Ottoman general Mustafa Kemal, who landed in Samsun 90 years ago today to launch the Turkish War of Liberation and who was ordered to be killed by the last sultan, allegiant to the occupation forces that were unhappy with the refusal to surrender by a "handful of bandits" in Anatolia. Ninety years ago today Mustafa Kemal launched the War of Liberation in Samsun at the expense of being branded by the Ottoman Palace as a "bandit" who could be murdered; 90 years later today tens of thousands of "terrorists" refusing to surrender to the systematic advance of political Islam aspiring to replace the modern, democratic, secular republic that Atatürk described as his biggest achievement with a conservative post-modern theocratic state will bid farewell to Professor Türkan Saylan, who spent a 74-year life defending the modern republic, gender equality and girls’ education rights, and rebelling against illiteracy, primitivism and radicalism.

Born in Istanbul in 1935, Saylan started her rebellion in 1976, a year before she became a professor in 1977, against the established alienation of leprosy patients in society. The Fight Against Leprosy Association she established that year helped Turkey to tear down the mental and physical barriers condemning leprosy patients to alienation from society while her pioneering works in that field not only reduced the much-feared condition to negligible names but also earned her the prestigious International Gandhi Award of India in 2006. She was a founding member of the International Leprosy Union and an active member for decades of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology and the International Leprosy Association. From 1981 to 2002, for 21 years, besides her work at Istanbul University, she was the voluntary chief doctor of the Health Ministry Leprosy Hospital. From 1982 to 1987, she was the director of the Istanbul Medical Faculty’s Leprosy Research and Application Center while at the same time she actively contributed to the national program against leprosy as chief coordinator.

An outstanding struggle for modernity

In 1989 she started actively taking part in the fight for the defense of modernity and a modern, democratic and secular republic when she and a group of intellectuals established the Association for Supporting Contemporary Life, or ÇYDD, which she led until she passed away yesterday after a long and painful fight against cancer. Since then, the ÇYDD has provided grants to thousands of poor students, especially girls, and built schools in Turkey's impoverished regions.

In 1990, Saylan was among the founders and deputy chairperson of the Association of Academics. The same year she participated in the establishment of the Research and Application Center for the Problems of Women within Istanbul University. Until 1996 she served at the center as a deputy director.

After she retired from academic life in 2002, Saylan devoted her entire time to activities of the ÇYDD, as well as the Fight Against Leprosy Association while at the same time continued serving as a member of the Social Services Consultative Council, where she was named a member by 9th President Süleyman Demirel and as a member of the Higher Education Council, or YÖK, between 2001 and 2007, where she was named a member by 10th President Ahmet Necdet Sezer. Besides she was active in various associations and foundations dealing with human rights, gender equality and girls’ education.

She never gave up. Even when her house was raided several weeks ago by police on orders of the prosecutors conducting the so-called Ergenekon probe, despite her frail health condition, she did not hesitate raising her voice in full confidence that the fight must continue because the sad developments underlined the need to work harder to achieve independence of judiciary, to defend those subjected to character assassination and of course to support the supremacy of law in the country.

She was a committed supporter of the modern Turkish Republic and an ardent fighter of gender equality, particularly girls’ education rights. She was definitely a "terrorist" who never accepted to surrender to primitivism or tyranny and who never accepted to compromise the values and norms of the modern Republic.

She became immortal yesterday.

Tomorrow Turkey will mark the anniversary of the May 19, 1919, arrival of Mustafa Kemal (Atatürk) and his friends in Samsun to start the Turkish War of Independence, a long and painful struggle that succeeded not only in bringing an end to occupation in most parts of the territory defined in the "National borders" resolution of the last Ottoman parliament but also to establish on that shrunk former imperial territory the modern Turkish Republic with a firm commitment to "protect" whatever was left from the empire but also with an outright rejection of the imperial expansionist conquest understanding as expressed in its founding father Atatürk’s "Peace at home, peace abroad" saying. Expansionism or imperialism may have four basic forms: economic, cultural, political and territorial. The present-day imperial powers generally avoid territorial expansionism, while they go to the maximums in all three other spheres through the power of their economy, currency, international agencies catering to their interests, domination on energy resources or controlling energy routes, media, cinema and other informatics means and of course with their persuasive political power backed by their military might.

Though still a "developing country," Turkey has a one of the biggest economies in its geography. It is not, however, one of the big eight economies, or, leave that aside, a self-sufficient economy. Since the mid 1980s the Turkish lira has been a "convertible" currency, which indeed is convertible mostly in a region from Edirne in the Thracian part of the country to the remote Hakkari in southeastern Anatolia. In the last three decades or so Turkish exports increased to a level that perhaps could not be even dreamed of in the founding period of the republic. Yet, today’s Turkey has no economic expansionist capability other than exporting some capital to some neighboring countries because of worsening economic situation here or more advantageous labor cost, investment and tax policies offered by our neighbors. Still, in today’s "globalization" trends in international economy, aspiring for economic expansionism and taking some crawling moves to that end fits well to the realpolitik of the day.

Regarding cultural expansionism, however, we Turks often believe this country has a vast potential because of its imperial past. At international meetings and at regional gatherings Turkish speakers love to talk about the great tolerance the former Ottoman empire had towards its minorities, how great those good old days were and they tend to ignore with what great festivities Muslim and non-Muslim people of those former Ottoman provinces celebrate their independence from 400 or more years of Ottoman occupation. Indeed Turkey and all those states established on the former Ottoman geography share a common past, but there is no commonality at all between how Turkey and these states perceive that common past. Most Turks might have very strong feelings and aspirations of all sorts towards those former Ottoman provinces, but peoples of those states established on the territories "liberated" from the Ottomans do not see in their wildest dreams or even in their nightmares a return to those days that we still consider as the "good old days" but even giving Turkey a prominent role in resolving some regional problems. What happened to the role Turkey wanted to play in peacemaking between Syria and Israel? How Egypt and the Saudis entered the scene testifies to this reality. So is the same for the "important role" Ankara wanted to play in resolving the power struggle among Palestinian factions.

Have we solved domestic issues?

That is, even though we Turks would aspire for a cultural expansionism and incline to use cultural advances in achieving a political expansionist aim with a "as former ruler of these lands we share a common history, common culture with peoples of the vast former Ottoman geography, we know the peoples of this geography better than anyone else and we know better than anyone else how to resolve conflicts in this geography" belief can nothing be further than an officious mind that often finds itself pondering how to reply the "What about your domestic problems? Have you solved all of them and now believe that you can help us solve our problems? What about the Alevites in Turkey? What about your minority problems? After more than 30 years of bloodshed, has the Kurdish problem come to an end? Did you bring an end to the secularist-Islamist polarization in your country? Thank God, the present-day neo-Ottomanists are at least so much realistic not to have any territorial expansionist designs.

There is absolutely one point in which the ruling Justice and Development Party, or AKP, government can rightfully boast of its outstanding success. Perhaps there are times in Turkish history when unemployment might be higher than the February 2009 figure of 16.1 percent released by the Turkish Statistical Institution, or TÜİK, but even if so, as there is no written document to prove that, the title of absolute champion of unemployment must be presented to the AKP and Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.

Last month we were lamenting that thanks to the tangentially passing economic crisis more than one in every five young Turks have become unemployed. Among the below-25 age group unemployment was at 21.5 percent level in January. Now, the success of the AKP in that field has become even more demonstrative. About 28.6 percent of our young population was unemployed in February. That is about one in every four young Turks was without a job in February.

While the overall recorded unemployed population has reached 3.8 million, the fact that compared to the same month last year the increase in unemployment rate was more than 4 percentage points and compared to January 2009 there was an increase of almost 1.5 percentage points are indicators that the 16.1 percent unemployment rate in February this country is heading into some very difficult days this summer.

Small enterprises need support

Though the latest capacity utilization report indicated that there was some improvement in the Turkish industry for the first time since the international crisis started to have an impact on Turkey back in September 2008, statistics released by the Union of Turkish Chambers and Commodity Exchanges, or TOBB, about the opening and closing businesses underline clearly that small and medium-sized enterprises are waging an uphill fight for survival. The improvement in industrial capacity utilization was a direct product of a set of measures taken by the government, including decreasing value added tax and special consumption tax levels for a variety of industrial products ranging from cars to household appliances.

While interest rates for deposits with the banks were pulled down to around 11-13 percent levels, banks are still demanding incredibly high interest for credits they offer. Furthermore, the banking sector, which somehow has been recording record profits, maintains its reluctance to open fresh and easy credits to the real sector. Rightly, Prime Minister Erdoğan has been complaining about the not so positive attitudes of the banking sector and indeed has been demonstrating his anger against those who stop short of publicly criticizing what he considered "egoistic and self catering attitudes" of banks.

Obviously, if banks stand out as the sole sector in Turkey making record profits despite the crisis, there has to be some serious problems in the system. Perhaps as it has been adjusting with various tools the interest rates for deposits with the banks, the state must as well find ways of regulating a ceiling for interest rates on bank credits. By the way, the government should perhaps put as well a ceiling on credit card rates because at a time when banks are offering only 11-13 percent to deposits, in its gross injustice to see them charging as high as 76 percent interest on credit cards.

Credit card trap

The rates for bank credits as well as for credit cards have become vital for the small and medium sized enterprises. Businesses that cannot obtain fresh credits or face difficulties in finding some other ways of acquiring some soft loans (family or friend connections) are often resorting to borrowing money through their credit cards. Right, it is rather easy to withdraw 5, 10 or even 20 thousand liras, depending on the limit, through credit cards. But, with up to 76 percent interest rate applied on such credits indeed finding money through that method is no less than pulling the trigger and committing suicide.

Rather than complaining about banks, the government must realize its responsibility and act on the issue. Bare facts of today’s Turkey and the success of the provisional tax "incentives" provided to big industries demonstrate vividly the need for the government to step in with some concrete moves to ease the burden of economic-financial crisis on small and medium sized industries if it is interested at all not to score further unemployment rate records in the coming months.