The decision by the Turkish Constitutional Court on June 5 to annul the amendments of Articles 10 and 42 was a turning point in the country’s legal and political history.
With this radical and unprecedented decision, the possibility of lifting the headscarf ban at Turkish universities is out of the question. But the court’s decision goes way beyond the headscarf issue.
There are three immediate consequences to consider. First of all, this is a major setback for civil liberties and individual freedoms in Turkey. The militant secularist establishment in Turkey believes in the law as a way of protecting the state from individuals. The judiciary is seen as the last bastion of secularism to maintain the status quo. The Constitutional Court has openly declared that it considers the headscarf, a basic religious right under normal circumstances, to be a violation of secularism. This extremely narrow interpretation of secularism proves that Turkish secularism has little concern for basic human rights and civil liberties when it comes to the security of the state.
Secondly, the decision is a major blow to the authority and powers of Parliament. Remember, the amendments of Articles 10 and 42 were proposed and supported by 411 deputies from four different parties and one independent. This is more than 80 percent of the Turkish Parliament. In a parliamentary democracy, the parliament represents the will of the people. On the question of lifting the headscarf ban at universities, there was a perfect match between the popular will and Parliament in Ankara, with many polls conducted over the last four to five years confirming over and over again that about 80 percent of the Turkish people support lifting the ban. By overturning the amendments, the court has declared itself to be above Parliament and the popular will. From now on, Parliament will be under the constant tutelage of a juristocratic regime.
Thirdly, the court decision is also a decision about the closure of the Justice and Development Party (AK Party). I believe the AK Party was already politically banned on June 5. If we remember that a good part of the indictment is about the headscarf issue, it would not be farfetched to say that the AK Party is certain to be closed by this court. If there are still some among AK Party ranks thinking that the court may not go for the ultimate punishment, they should think again.
After this decision, it would be better for the AK party to be closed down than live under the constant fear and tutelage of a militant and irresponsible judiciary. Giving a partial punishment to the AK Party (such as excluding it from state funds) short of total closure would cripple the AK Party and its leadership. It would also send a similar message to other political parties that may support the reform process. But in such a scenario there would be no new beginning for the AK Party. The AK Party would be tamed — i.e., turned into an ineffective, ordinary, right-wing conservative party. The AK Party would “make peace with the system” but this would only mean stopping the process of reforms, democratization and the expansion of liberties in Turkey.
What needs to be done is obvious — making every effort for full democracy. First of all, Erdoğan and other leaders should initiate a new democratization package, introduce new amendments to be followed by a new constitution and start a gradual process of judicial reforms. The “let’s not anger the judges” policy has lost its meaning at this point. Parliament Speaker Köksal Toptan should be more active and clear about what he wants from the other party leaders. Inviting them for a cup of tea without a clear agenda would be a waste of time. It is up to Toptan to protect the rights of Parliament.
The AK Party cannot afford to become a tamed political party of the right. This would not only be the end of the AK Party and the Erdoğan era but also the return of the ancient regime of Turkey — a semi-democracy under the tutelage of military-civilian democracy backed