A democratic opening

Whatever it might be called, regardless of whether it might be known as “southeastern,” “eastern” or “Kurdish,” no one can deny that there is a problem. No one can deny that this problem, together with some phobias and obsessions hat cannot be brushed aside as “trivial,” has been castrating Turkish democracy.

The Kurdish, eastern or southeastern problem is not an isolated problem. Rather, it is part of a bigger democratization problem in this country. And like the chicken and the egg scenario, there is no consensus, even among the committed pro-settlement group, about whether a resolution of the Kurdish issue will play a catalyst role in resolving the overall democracy problems or whether a collective and comprehensive democratization drive would resolve the Kurdish issue.

Indeed, if there is desire to resolve the Kurdish issue within the national and territorial integrity of Turkey, we have to concede that the problem is not only a “cultural rights” or “language” related problem, but that there is also a political dimension that requires more than a “brotherhood and tranquility project” to be resolved.

For example, is it possible in any democracy for a party leader to prohibit deputies of his own party from commenting on a certain issue? Or, if there is a “free speech” concept in this country that allows a prime minister to call for a national boycott of media critical of his government or if there are people in prisons, convicted of subscribing to the views or lending intentional support to the propaganda of this or that gang, is not there a freedom of speech problem in this country? If without resolving this problem and recognizing the right of individuals or groups to voice some ideas and demands that might enrage the administrators or the majority of the people in the country, can we say Turkey’s democracy problems were resolved? Or, even if we achieve all these reforms and provide full freedom of expression to our people, will we, for example, be able to tolerate people aspiring for secession, saying: “That is within their freedom of expression. … Ideas must be quelled with ideas”? Or would we prosecute them with some tough penalties?

Political parties are pillars of a functioning multi-party pluralist democracy. Elections are fundamental in transforming into life the “rule by the people for the people” principle of democracy. Yet, can we say this country has a legislative framework fully compatible with the norms and principles of democracy? Or, do our legislations on political parties and elections help convert our parties into tyrannical castles for party leaders?

Right, justice in representation might be compromised to a certain extent in order to achieve stability in governance. That is, electoral threshold is not something peculiar to Turkey. Yet, is it really justified to have, for the sake of stability in governance, an extremely barbaric 10 percent electoral threshold that effectively keeps minority political views out of the legislature? Let’s be honest. What was the reason behind the introduction of that 10 percent threshold? Was it not to keep the ethnic Kurdish nationalist formations out of Parliament? Was it successful?

To a certain extent, but through independent candidates the Democratic Society Party, or DTP, avoided the obstacle and entered Parliament while many other minority views were compelled to reconcile and join mainstream parties or simply remain outside Parliament.

Is Turkey prepared to bring down the national electoral threshold to around 3 or 5 percent and allow minorities or even some radical views to be represented in Parliament? Is Turkey prepared to introduce a narrow-region election system, by-elections in selection of parliamentary candidates and thus limit the absolute power of party leaders on the political fate of deputies? Can we resolve the Kurdish problem without removing these barriers in representation? Or, does the government intend to go further than opening the university doors to theological high school (imam hatips) graduates and liberalize universities by demolishing the Higher Education Council, established by the 1980 coup leaders to bring universities under firm control? Is it prepared to radically change the law on strikes and lockouts, recognize the right to collective bargaining to state-employed, and recognize right to go on strike, including a national strike?

There is a problem in this country, and it is called the Turkish problem. The Kurdish issue is just one aspect of it.