The result of the palace fears
The election manifesto read by Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu contains similar pledges of the main opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP) manifesto of four months ago. The ruling party Justice and Development Party (AKP) had then protested against the CHP pledges on grounds that they lack “the resources.”
At that time, the CHP’s economic pledges were fiercely criticized. I wonder if those criticizing voices will say the same thing about the AKP now.
Well, this question is always there to ask: If you were able to do all these, then why did you not think of them during your one-party rule of 13 years?
The election manifestation of the AKP actually reflects the fears of the “palace.” The biggest fear, by the way, is the existence of the independent justice in this country.
For this reason, there are approaches in the manifesto that will end this independence and restrict the citizens’ claims for their rights against the state. One of them is the restriction of the means of individual application to the Constitutional Court.
They have said in their manifesto, “We will review this practice in the light of the work overload individual applications bring to the Constitutional Court.”
Well, but, wasn’t it this party which introduced this right?
Was it wrong what was done then or is it wrong what is trying to be done now? If what they want to do now is the correct thing, then are we going to be sure of that?
There are pledges in the manifesto that leave the selection of high court members to the likes of the majority party in the parliament “in order to increase the social legitimacy of justice.”
They want to do this because they want to take precautions if, just in case, one day an independent judge acts determinedly to call the past to account.
Well, indeed, in order to be able to do all these, a majority adequate to change the constitution has to be reached.
Since opinion polls show that there will not be much of a difference from previous elections, how will they be able to do this?
This must be more like the situation of whistling while walking past the cemetery to avoid fear.
AKP’s distance to violence
To understand whether a political party is really against violence, you have to look into how it treats its members involved in violence. Do they cancel their memberships and prevent them from participating in party meetings and activities? Do they tolerate or isolate? You should look into this.
For instance, when the AKP immediately expelled three of its members who attacked journalist Ahmet Hakan, it acted correctly.
But there is one other member who is continuing to receive privileged treatment. That person is the one who was openly involved in violence, one who organized the transportation of municipal workers to Hürriyet offices and made them break glass.
The person who organized all these incidents, who was personally involved in them, who talked about “beating Ahmet Hakan and Sedat Ergin until they became wiser,” is highly respected within the party. He was made a member of the counseling committee at the party congress, for instance. He was also present when the AKP election manifesto was read.
He is receiving a hero’s welcome. I don’t know what to say…