A bill drafted by Edibe Sözen, the deputy chairwoman of the ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party), for the protection of young people has created much controversy. As usual, the "big reactions" came from radical secular circles. The bill was actually prepared with inspiration from Germany, an EU member country, and intended to protect Turkey's youth against various destructive elements, including pornography.

Due to liberal policies, certain immoral acts that have the potential to disrupt family and social life cannot be restricted in Turkey. When a person attempts to defend morals, he is labeled as one who opposes liberal policies. We can safely make this claim: If this bill was voted on in a referendum, it would be accepted by the majority of the voters.

In the face of protests and reactions, senior executives in the AK Party, which recently narrowly avoided the risk of being closed down, a panicked. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan cut short his holiday and convened his party's Central Executive Board (MYK) in Ankara. Meeting under the chairmanship of the prime minister on Monday, the MYK issued a harsh statement concerning the bill. According to the statement, the party had nothing to do with the bill, which was prepared by Sözen on her own initiative, not following the party bylaws, program and conventions. None of the party organs was aware of the bill. So it was decided that the bill should be withdrawn indefinitely. As reported by some newspapers, during the meeting Prime Minister Erdoğan told Sözen he deeply resented her because of this bill.

This is very interesting. A deputy prepares a bill that she considers beneficial for her voters --acting on her own impulse or not -- but when secular groups react to the bill, the top executives of the party abort their holidays to hold meetings and deny any affiliation with the bill, scolding the deputy who has prepared it. This requires study in terms of democratic theory. When it is examined from the perspective of actual politics, we get the following picture, which I regard as quite significant:

(1) The AK Party has been intimidated by the decision made by the Constitutional Court in closure case against it. In the future, it will not be able to take any step concerning the social and cultural policies that its politics entails.

(2) If it attempts to take such a step, the chief prosecutor of the Supreme Court of Appeals will immediately open a new closure case, in which case the Constitutional Court will not start to examine it from scratch, but pick up from the previous case. There are some rumors in the press that the chief prosecutor has already started to collect evidence for another closure case.

(3) The area of activity allocated to the AK Party is restricted to the economy alone. Even in the field of the economy, the AK Party will not be allowed to do anything to improve the real economy, increase employment, create new employment opportunities or implement a fairer income distribution scheme. It is expected to ensure that the interest, stock exchange and foreign exchange machinery is kept functional at a macro level.

(4) Contrary to common belief, foreign policy is designed, tailored and implemented by a small group of bureaucratic elites who operate completely outside the control of the government.

(5) We can argue that the problems related to fundamental rights and freedoms, the headscarf ban, relations between religion and state and freedom of religion and conscience will not be tackled in the short term by the AK Party.

(6) The Kurdish problem has once again been relegated to the military bureaucracy and continues to be perceived as purely a matter of security. While it received the support of about 80 percent of the Kurds living in Turkey -- this rate is 54 percent in the Southeast -- the AK Party will not bring the Kurdish issue to agenda.

As such, one can conclude that Turkey has implicitly adopted a China or South Korea-like model. So it will pursue liberal economic policies in accordance with the whims of global capitalism, while no one talks about political, administrative or legal freedoms.