×
A new closure case?
Paylaş
LinkedinFlipboardLinki KopyalaYazı Tipi
Nowadays there is a serious claim floating around in Ankara. Speculations cannot of course be taken very seriously, but if the speculation is about the probability of yet another closure case against the ruling Justice and Development Party, or AKP, then it cannot be brushed aside so easily.
I have read first about this new and rather surprising speculation from my friend Zübeyir Kındıra in his column in the Internet Haber news portal. Based on some "strong" sources and "rather well-founded information" Kındıra was writing that the speculation that a new closure case that might be filed against the ruling AKP in early summer has to be taken very seriously. Concentrating on the issue I soon discovered with surprise that indeed there was such widespread speculation among politicians that somehow escaped my attention.
Has the Office of the Chief Prosecutor of the Court of Appeals really started collecting evidence for a new demand for the closure of the AKP? Could there be a correlation between such a speculation and AKP’s declarations that immediately after the local polls this weekend it would concentrate on a comprehensive constitutional amendment package which would include clauses introducing the so-called Venice criteria for the closure of parties by the Constitutional Court? What would the introduction of the Venice criteria provide the AKP?
Office of the Chief Prosecutor, naturally, would not reveal even if there was such a preparation. Senior friends in the judiciary, on the other hand, were stressing that watching activities of political parties, gathering evidence of alleged violations of the Constitution and the laws on political parties are just among the duties of the Office of the Chief Prosecutor, though collection of such evidence did not necessarily mean the chief prosecutor will demand closure of a party. "That’s a routine activity of the Office of the Chief Prosecutor. For making a closure case against a party there must be sufficient and strong evidence. Is there sufficient and strong evidence against the AKP? No one can say anything before seeing the AKP file at the Chief Prosecutor’s office." But, why such a speculation started to float around just on the eve of the March 29 local polls? Is the AKP itself distributing such speculation in hopes that there would be a backlash in society in its favor and help the ruling party garner a higher percentage of votes in the local polls? While that might indeed be the case, playing such a dangerous tool may be very costly to the ruling party.
Boomerang?
Yes, last summer the Constitutional Court did not close down the AKP. But, is it not a fact that the AKP escaped closure because of the qualified vote requirement for closure of parties. Indeed, six of the 11 members of the court had voted for AKP’s closure but because seven votes were required for closure it escaped closure very narrowly. Furthermore, is it not a fact that the Constitutional Court decided with a 10 to one vote that the AKP was a focus of anti-secular activities? That is AKP was declared by the High Court as a "criminal party." If a new closure case is filed against the AKP and if that file contains sufficient evidence, will it be a far fetching assumption to think that the earlier verdict will make it very difficult for the AKP to escape a closure case this time? Would not new evidence that the AKP has been acting like a focus of anti-secular activity despite the earlier High Court’s "very strong warning" convince at least one of the five members hesitated to say "yes" to AKP’s closure last summer to join those who believed the AKP needed to be closed down?
Then, it becomes all the more meaningful why AKP people have started talking about a new comprehensive constitutional amendment package and introduction of the Venice criteria. While direct involvement of parties in violence will be required under the Venice criteria for closure of parties, the concept of individual responsibility will be introduced. That is rather than closing down parties, people accused of violating constitutional clauses and the law on political parties or elections will be held "responsible" and may be banished from politics if the changes Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has been suggesting lately are to be legislated.
Thus, while trying to salvage his party, Erdoğan might be initiating a process which might boomerang and become very costly for his own political life. Well than, do we really face speculation about AKP’s closure or a building up of a new power struggle between Erdoğan and the tenant of the Çankaya presidential residence?
Has the Office of the Chief Prosecutor of the Court of Appeals really started collecting evidence for a new demand for the closure of the AKP? Could there be a correlation between such a speculation and AKP’s declarations that immediately after the local polls this weekend it would concentrate on a comprehensive constitutional amendment package which would include clauses introducing the so-called Venice criteria for the closure of parties by the Constitutional Court? What would the introduction of the Venice criteria provide the AKP?
Office of the Chief Prosecutor, naturally, would not reveal even if there was such a preparation. Senior friends in the judiciary, on the other hand, were stressing that watching activities of political parties, gathering evidence of alleged violations of the Constitution and the laws on political parties are just among the duties of the Office of the Chief Prosecutor, though collection of such evidence did not necessarily mean the chief prosecutor will demand closure of a party. "That’s a routine activity of the Office of the Chief Prosecutor. For making a closure case against a party there must be sufficient and strong evidence. Is there sufficient and strong evidence against the AKP? No one can say anything before seeing the AKP file at the Chief Prosecutor’s office." But, why such a speculation started to float around just on the eve of the March 29 local polls? Is the AKP itself distributing such speculation in hopes that there would be a backlash in society in its favor and help the ruling party garner a higher percentage of votes in the local polls? While that might indeed be the case, playing such a dangerous tool may be very costly to the ruling party.
Boomerang?
Yes, last summer the Constitutional Court did not close down the AKP. But, is it not a fact that the AKP escaped closure because of the qualified vote requirement for closure of parties. Indeed, six of the 11 members of the court had voted for AKP’s closure but because seven votes were required for closure it escaped closure very narrowly. Furthermore, is it not a fact that the Constitutional Court decided with a 10 to one vote that the AKP was a focus of anti-secular activities? That is AKP was declared by the High Court as a "criminal party." If a new closure case is filed against the AKP and if that file contains sufficient evidence, will it be a far fetching assumption to think that the earlier verdict will make it very difficult for the AKP to escape a closure case this time? Would not new evidence that the AKP has been acting like a focus of anti-secular activity despite the earlier High Court’s "very strong warning" convince at least one of the five members hesitated to say "yes" to AKP’s closure last summer to join those who believed the AKP needed to be closed down?
Then, it becomes all the more meaningful why AKP people have started talking about a new comprehensive constitutional amendment package and introduction of the Venice criteria. While direct involvement of parties in violence will be required under the Venice criteria for closure of parties, the concept of individual responsibility will be introduced. That is rather than closing down parties, people accused of violating constitutional clauses and the law on political parties or elections will be held "responsible" and may be banished from politics if the changes Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has been suggesting lately are to be legislated.
Thus, while trying to salvage his party, Erdoğan might be initiating a process which might boomerang and become very costly for his own political life. Well than, do we really face speculation about AKP’s closure or a building up of a new power struggle between Erdoğan and the tenant of the Çankaya presidential residence?
Paylaş
LinkedinFlipboardLinki KopyalaYazı Tipi
