R. Tayip Erdogan came to power with the promise of applying an alternative model of government, aiming at creating a more equalitarian society and distribution of national wealth within Turkish society.

It was meant to be an effort on the part of a modest Islamic leader with pro-european attitudes to modernize the country. His coming to power was the conscious choice of the Turkish people who offered him an ample majority. Today´s effort to rid the coun-try of AKP constitutes an actual effort to resist reform by means of legal technicalities alien to western liberal democracies.

AKP has been accused of undermining the secular character of the Turkish state. Since 1970 this has been the fourth case of similar attempts to lead Islamic parties out of power and put aside the will of the Turkish people. It is obvious that the war be-tween reformers and those resisting reform has reached its peak.

Yet, the point to be remembered is that T. Erdogan is in power simply because the Turkish people decided that something ought to change in Turkish politics and soci-ety. He is a democratically elected Prime Minister. The clash is not a feud between islamists and supporters of a secular state. It is rather the externalization of antagonis-tic, incompatible views vis-à-vis social issues and inequalities and T. Erdogan´s at-tempt to reform the constitution.


Actually he is the one who provided the momentum for Turkey´s course to EU mem-bership, although the issue provides skepticism on the part Europeanists who question Ankara´s willingness to support the EU in its quest for autonomy in international poli-tics and emancipation from Atlanticist views that have led Europe in the shadow of American foreign policy and the demonization of Islam.

Western analysts suggest that the rift between centers of power in Turkey may deviate its mapping process towards potential EU membership. In essence the issue of politi-cally exterminating AKP constitutes a dramatic deviation from democratic practices and a direct affront to the constitutional order in Turkey and the legitimately ex-pressed will of the Turkish electorate. It is a battle over the quality and representative attitudes of the Turkish democracy, a political issue not just an issue over the scarf.

This was acknowledged by the EU commissioner O. Rhen who suggested that the is-sue should be resolved within the established parliamentary order. The judiciary in Turkey has the power to endorse democracy on the basis of electoral results not legal-istic interpretations. They can put down rules of engagement for those who make al-ternative suggestions to the Turkish electorate. It is not just their legal prerogative but their constitutional duty.



Source:Americanchronicle