Democracy or authoritarianism?

Do the AK Parti-centered, one-dimensional reactions against the recent operation and the claims that the government is trying to silence the voice of the opposition and punish them, portray the situation in Turkey clearly?

Can you define all the political developments in this country according to the Presindet’s tendencies?

Can Turkey’s political system and the AK Parti rulership be oversimplified to the fraud cases, or be simulated to the Ceausescu regime?

Taking off from a good intentional point of view, a positive answer to these questions could only be given either when you are looking at Turkey from outside or you really are making nothing of Turkey.

Such a sharp way of interpretation is solely possible through “contrarian lust” or “denominational anger”. One of the indicators of this mood is: ignoring the political arena and power and reverse-interpreting the deadly obstacles in front of democracy (i.e. praises for the Gülen-led group).

As a matter of fact, the murmurs in the secular neighborhood, which are actually beyond criticism and declaring their own worries and fixations as real facts, surf on its own value system, rather than a democrat and freedomist stance.

Of course, this picture doesn’t present that Turkey is an unproblematic country from the point of political rulership.

AK Party achieved a great transformation in Turkey, and they still do. This transformation is based on reversing of the model that was built when the Republic was established and it is as historic as this history. Sociological, symbolical and economic equalization and the denominational translocation that had been experienced witinh this frame are the founding elements of the new period.

An array of reform policies like; “demilitarization”, “enlargement experienced in the field of civil and political rights”, “resolution process”, “Alevi opening”, had accompanied those elements, and the main political tendency is still in this direction.

In addition to this, there is a main deficiency in this model; similar to how there is also a deficiency in the constructer model: susceptibility of law and principle….

There is more than one aspect to this.

First we have to acknowledge that the pragmatist and patriarchal politics understanding, which ostracizes the communal demand-political

decision interaction, participation and criticism tolerance, had encircled AK Party. As the construction of a new period becomes the point in question, the encircling is becoming more critical at the same rate.

The patriarchal language, which was perceived as a political will statement when AK Party was struggling with the military, is now becoming identical with authoritativeness at the moment it takes a stand against new communal demands and participant democracy demands, and is being perceived in this direction. The continuity in important developments and reform policies like the efforts in the resolution of the Kurdish issue and the discussions on the Alevist opening, are being shadowed against this perception time to time. Thus, it prepares a material for the “superficial perception”, which reduces Turkey to Erdoğan’s expression and character.

On the other hand, there are three serious issues related with the democratic functioning during the latest period of AK Party, which we frequently underline: (1) The hegemony, which had been built upon the cultural, communal and economic fields by the politics and political institution, destroys the autonomy and makes a reference to majoriatarianism. (2) The personalization experienced in the functioning style of the political rulership and this personalization tendency to affect the system from jurisdiction to bureaucracy. (3) The conspirator political perception, which purifies the communal opposition and media criticism from its communal and political qualities and reduces it to a public security incident, and constraining every actor (outside its own function) inside the political rival/friend actor clamp, and the oppression it builds above freedoms….

One of the crucial aspects of the deficiency of law and principle is the matter of courthouse and juridical sanctions. The line, which extends from Balyoz (Sledgehammer) to Ergenekon, which both AK Party had associated with, is clear. If problematic tools like HSYK’s (The Supreme Board of Judges and Prosecutors) new structure and loyalty based assignments, which are being used in the policies of the rulership upon purifying the jurisdiction from the Gülen-led group, then it’s clear that the “politicized jurisdiction state or image” is still continuing its existence. With the fake accusations (i.e Şık, Şener, Avcı) and fake acquittal (i.e Çetin Doğan) via cases, where the horse tracks are mixed up with dog tracks, the communal field is getting dirty. Critical cases are being used as a tool in political struggles.

Then what about the result?

At the same rate that these elements related with the transformation are making a reference to democratization, these elements are also making a reference to an adverse reference.

This is the main paradox in Turkey.

The essential reasons for the sharp criticisms from the West are: their being unable to understand this paradox and the problems carried by the situation in Turkey from the point of their own value systems.

However, the issue is neither secular, as they see it, or dark, as it’s seen from the glasses of the neighborhood.

Nor cakes and ale as seen from others’ glasses….

There is an urgent need for a critical and constructor opposition party, and for the political rulership to lend an ear to criticisms.

#Democracy

#authoritarianism

#AK Parti

#Turkey

#parallel state operation