For democracy and the election results to prevail. Relations between the EU and Turkey appear to be undergoing a surprising twist. Until yesterday, hesitations about Turkey joining the Union were to a greater or lesser extent linked to the progress in this country of political forces that declared themselves as belonging to the Muslim religion and who now hold the reigns to the government, the presidency and parliamentary majority in the country. It was in this respect that the EU in general, and the European Commission in particular, made a vigorous intervention to defend the primacy of politics and the election results against an initiative from the Turkish Constitutional Court to challenge the very legitimacy of the party in power, the AKP.
The facts are as follows: the Turkish Constitutional Court considers the complaint by the Appeal Court's General Prosecutor regarding the anti-secular activities of the AKP (and its parliamentary majority) as admissible. The demand for this complaint to be examined is aimed at banning the party itself and any political activity by the prime minister and the president of the republic for five years! The European commissioner responsible for accession negotiations, Olli Rehn, immediately responded by underlining the fact that in a democracy, political questions are debated at parliament and decided at the ballot box and not in the courts: the Turkish constitution should be revised accordingly (EUROPE 9633).
According to several observers, we now face a new episode in the many incidents marking the historical confrontation between civilian and military power that we have seen in recent Turkish history. Military power, which sees itself as the guardian of the country's secularism, had therefore once again intervened in political affairs through the action, this time, of the Constitutional Court. The rapporteur on Turkey at the European Parliament, Ria Oomen-Ruijten affirmed that “the army is trying to paralyse the work of the state, the government and parliament”, whereas a parliamentarian from Germany of Turkish origin, Vural Öger criticised Mr Rehn's position (EUROPE 9636). In the meantime, the report on EU-Turkish relations was approved by the appropriate parliamentary committee (see EUROPE the day before yesterday) and will be debated in the 22 May plenary.
Very firm line taken by Commission president. While awaiting the European Parliament debate, the visit by Mr Barroso to Ankara (accompanied by Mr Rehn) was the focus of much attention. Before leaving, Mr Barroso made a number of explicit affirmations and stated that it was not normal that a political party be subject to a banning order. He also expressed the hope that the Constitutional Court would make a decision in compliance with the law and democracy, and stressed that secularism was a political choice that could not be imposed by force (EUROPE 9639). In his speech to the Turkish parliament, Mr Barroso would only say that the Commission was following the events with the closest attention. The constraints, however, should not be ignored: the president of the opposition party, Deniz Bayal, pointed out that he was not allowed to talk about ongoing proceedings at the Constitutional Court and explained that he would not have hesitated to leave the room if the slightest word had been said about the case. Nevertheless, in an interview on CNN-Turkey, the president of the Commission used the same terms as those he had employed in his Brussels declaration, as already mentioned, and in a press conference in Ankara, he took an even firmer line: “It is not normal for the majority party in Parliament, elected democratically, to be subject to such a trial…It is our duty to respect the Constitutional Court…but I was surprised because a trial of this kind is unimaginable in a democratic country”.
The high representative for the CFSP, Javier Solana's tone was more moderate but just as clear and described the Turkish Constitutional Court's attitude as difficult to understand.
The Turkish press has informed us that Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's response had been vigorous and indignant, alluding to a judicial coup d'état and explaining that “those who have not been able to win democratically are choosing anti-democratic methods. History will not forgive them”. He also added that the dissolution of his party would be illegitimate in the eyes of the public that had elected it. It should be emphasised that the infringement of secular principles is focused on one detail: the authorisation of the headscarf in universities (which many democratic countries allow).
The impact of these developments on the hypothesis of Turkish accession to the EU, as well as on the ongoing negotiations, still needs to be assessed. This will be the subject of this column tomorrow.
(F.R.)