×
Martyrs of democracy
Paylaş
LinkedinFlipboardLinki KopyalaYazı Tipi
The power-obsessed prime minister of 1950s Turkey was telling his deputies that national will was above all other powers and since the ruling party received the highest vote in the election and was given the duty and privilege of administering the country on its own, if the ruling party majority in Parliament wanted to reintroduce caliphate, since they have the required majority in Parliament, thus the legislative power, they could do it. The nation was polarized at the time.
There was a "Vatan Cephesi" or the "Country Front" composed of people "loyal" to the "absolute ruler" and the "absolutely powerful" ruling party. There was an opposition persecuted by a makeshift parliamentary inquisition mechanism. It was a daring task to criticize the "absolutely powerful" administration.
Turkey, unfortunately, could not overcome at the time that acute "power obsession" condition of the ruling party, the prime minister and the president through democratic means. One day, some people in uniform decided to blow the whistle, ordered a halt to democracy, gathered a special tribunal and after a lengthy mockery trial difficult to reconcile with the notion of justice, condemned the president, the prime minister and two ministers to death. The president was later saved because of his advanced age, but the premier and his two ministers were executed. Though decades later Prime Minister Adnan Menderes, Foreign Minister Fatin Rüştü Zorlu and Finance Minister Hasan Polatkan were posthumously honored by the Turkish state and they were declared by the nation as "martyrs of democracy" what Turkey lived in 1960 was an immense trauma the effects of which can still be felt in Turkish political life.
With tears in his eyes, "I may commit suicide" words poured out of the mouth of one of the most eminent anchormen of the country Wednesday evening after reporting allegations in the just-released new thriller, or the second indictment of the so-called Ergenekon "gang" case, that his wife had made several trips "alone" to Brazil and that there were some photographs of her. "It is as if my honor was fired at... If you are insulted by someone, you go to court. If you are insulted by a court, where can you go?" the anchorman revolted.
Aim at critics! Fire!
Apparently those claims were "discovered" by the prosecutors of the Ergenekon case while examining the personal computer of Turhan Çömez, a former Justice and Development Party, or AKP, deputy and one of the suspects of the second Ergenekon case who is presently attending a language course in London and could not be "captured" yet. Were the claims verified?
On the contrary, such claims were made years ago and were proved to have been fabricated by some people to prevent the anchorman from investigating further some alleged corrupt deals of the husband of the prime minister of the time. Why then such claims that were proven wrong were included in the new thriller by the prosecutor? Creative writing? Or, are we faced with yet another attempt to kill the reputation of a prominent critic? Is it rational, except perhaps at some banana republics, to think judiciary might be employed by the political administration to kill reputation of its adversaries?
Is it possible in any democracy that respects supremacy of law, equality of all in front of law, rights of the individual and such norms that constitute the sine qua non of democratic governance to have several thousand pages of charges based on alleged telephone conversations, files allegedly recovered on computers of the accused and testimonies of some secret witnesses but no hard evidence? Where on earth in any democracy an alleged consideration to undertake an illegal action can be considered a crime unless such considerations were put into action? Is opposing a government or even saying you wish to see it toppled a crime? Murder is a crime, but how many husband or wives might have considered undertaking such a crime in the height of hot discussions with their partners? Should we send behind bars all husbands and wives?
Even the arch foes of the AKP government in Turkey do not want to see any new "martyrs of democracy." We have to find a way from the current AKP mess through democracy and democratic means.
Turkey, unfortunately, could not overcome at the time that acute "power obsession" condition of the ruling party, the prime minister and the president through democratic means. One day, some people in uniform decided to blow the whistle, ordered a halt to democracy, gathered a special tribunal and after a lengthy mockery trial difficult to reconcile with the notion of justice, condemned the president, the prime minister and two ministers to death. The president was later saved because of his advanced age, but the premier and his two ministers were executed. Though decades later Prime Minister Adnan Menderes, Foreign Minister Fatin Rüştü Zorlu and Finance Minister Hasan Polatkan were posthumously honored by the Turkish state and they were declared by the nation as "martyrs of democracy" what Turkey lived in 1960 was an immense trauma the effects of which can still be felt in Turkish political life.
With tears in his eyes, "I may commit suicide" words poured out of the mouth of one of the most eminent anchormen of the country Wednesday evening after reporting allegations in the just-released new thriller, or the second indictment of the so-called Ergenekon "gang" case, that his wife had made several trips "alone" to Brazil and that there were some photographs of her. "It is as if my honor was fired at... If you are insulted by someone, you go to court. If you are insulted by a court, where can you go?" the anchorman revolted.
Aim at critics! Fire!
Apparently those claims were "discovered" by the prosecutors of the Ergenekon case while examining the personal computer of Turhan Çömez, a former Justice and Development Party, or AKP, deputy and one of the suspects of the second Ergenekon case who is presently attending a language course in London and could not be "captured" yet. Were the claims verified?
On the contrary, such claims were made years ago and were proved to have been fabricated by some people to prevent the anchorman from investigating further some alleged corrupt deals of the husband of the prime minister of the time. Why then such claims that were proven wrong were included in the new thriller by the prosecutor? Creative writing? Or, are we faced with yet another attempt to kill the reputation of a prominent critic? Is it rational, except perhaps at some banana republics, to think judiciary might be employed by the political administration to kill reputation of its adversaries?
Is it possible in any democracy that respects supremacy of law, equality of all in front of law, rights of the individual and such norms that constitute the sine qua non of democratic governance to have several thousand pages of charges based on alleged telephone conversations, files allegedly recovered on computers of the accused and testimonies of some secret witnesses but no hard evidence? Where on earth in any democracy an alleged consideration to undertake an illegal action can be considered a crime unless such considerations were put into action? Is opposing a government or even saying you wish to see it toppled a crime? Murder is a crime, but how many husband or wives might have considered undertaking such a crime in the height of hot discussions with their partners? Should we send behind bars all husbands and wives?
Even the arch foes of the AKP government in Turkey do not want to see any new "martyrs of democracy." We have to find a way from the current AKP mess through democracy and democratic means.
Paylaş
LinkedinFlipboardLinki KopyalaYazı Tipi
