Turkey's fragile democracy

The closure case filed against the ruling party has revealed just how fragile the structure of democracy in Turkey is. Furthermore, it has demonstrated that democracy can be disrupted not only by military coups but also, and even more severely, by the judiciary.

Naturally, the gravity of this fragility does not stem solely from the fact that the lawsuit was filed against the ruling party. It also stems from the reality that, just as Turkey was beginning to project the image of a country taking off in terms of economic, social, and democratic gains, a judicial move could instantly blur this entire picture and reveal that all the progress achieved could be undone at a single stroke.

Even if, as a weak possibility, this lawsuit does not conclude against the AK Party, the mere fact that such an attempt could be made has exposed a major vulnerability in Turkey's security on its path to development.

There is also, perhaps, a dimension of democratic irony in the fact that this weakness has manifested as a concrete case through a closure lawsuit against the ruling party, which possesses ample domestic potential to accomplish many things given its representational power in parliament and political strength. Had it been a lawsuit filed against another party, the AK Party could have easily intervened and compensated for all its negative consequences. However, since it is itself the primary concrete target of a lawsuit that will ultimately strike all of Turkey, it hesitates to take the measures necessary to rectify the situation.

Yet, if the case proceeds along this course, it will not only affect the AK Party or Prime Minister Erdoğan's political life; it will extinguish the entire country's hopes for democracy, justice, development, and modernization for at least thirty years. Therefore, Erdoğan does not have the luxury of maintaining this attitude of appearing to accept the case with all its consequences.

This is no small matter. A friend of mine who has been living in the US for years used the following expressions when describing his impressions of the closure lawsuit process: "Before the lawsuit, Turkey looked from here like a medium-sized super country. Immediately after the lawsuit, it took on the image of an oriental despotic country with an uncertain tomorrow."

"Oriental despotism" is a phrase summarizing the Western perspective on Eastern countries for years. Supposing an absolutist "one-man" rule monopolizing all authority, the legal process in oriental despotic governance operates with an arbitrariness termed "qadi justice," embedded within the complex relationships between legal professionals and power.

Is it not thought-provoking enough that a lawsuit filed in the name of defending or protecting secularism ultimately drags the country down to the level of the worst examples of the Ottoman legal-Sharia order?

***

These days, everyone is searching for "state wisdom" somewhere in this lawsuit.

For AK Party executives, this imaginary state wisdom appears as a door of reliance that will ultimately reach the point of common sense and prevent the closure.

In their own imagination, they are so confident that they want nothing but good for the state that they ultimately trust that the state will not close their party. However, at this stage, rather than observing the realm of the state in the heavens staying at the level of Hegel, it would be of great benefit for them to descend to the level of Marx and perceive it in its simple facets.

Ultimately, no matter how much the world has progressed, and no matter how much distance Turkey has covered within this world, the obstacle faced is well below this level of progress. It is sometimes possible to paralyze a highly advanced technology in an equally primitive manner. The fact that a simple attack has complex consequences can easily give the illusion of a planning mind behind the attack proportional to its results. However, the simplicity of the attack often stems from the attackers having no other weapon in their hands. The consequences of the closure case are indeed excessively disproportionate to the effort spent on this case or the complexity of the legal procedure operating it.

Today, it is futile to seek a sophisticated mind or will in the closure case faced not only by the AK Party but also by the development horizon of all of Turkey.

As long as one keeps searching for this mind, there is a danger of becoming bogged down in evaluations regarding the measures to be taken against the closure lawsuit that lead to theodicy (resignation, submission).

Instead, it is beneficial to try what is easier: to attempt to view what is happening as if it is taking place in this world.