Reuters, in a widely reprinted story in the Turkish press, claimed that a minister from Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's government is of the opinion that the AK Party will be closed down by the Constitutional Court and that almost all ministers believe this will be the final outcome. A senior party member let the Reuters reporter know that they will form a new party afterwards.

Since the news item was written in such a way that the Reuters correspondent did not disclose his sources, Turkish papers have been vehemently trying to find out who those sources are.

If I were a minister in the government or a senior party member, I would very well accept responsibility. In fact, I spent almost two hours with Paul de Bendern, Reuters' man in Turkey, during a state banquet thrown by Abdullah Gül, the president of the republic, in Queen Elizabeth's honor at Çankaya Palace. We sat next to each other at our designated table and in between courses indulged in political chitchat.

I am not a minister and hold no position in the party's hierarchy, so I cannot be any of his sources, but I may very well be. Since the ideas and possible scenarios attributed to party members are commonly discussed and universally accepted in AK Party circles, it is a futile effort to call for a witch-hunt to find the culprits.

Many in the AK Party and in Turkey believe that the AK Party will be closed down by the Constitutional Court and that the court will ban some party leaders from politics. Almost no one believes there grounds exist for the party's closure and many surmise that the AK Party has done nothing to jeopardize its existence as a political entity, but none expect this will save it from its final destiny of closure.

You don't need to be a minister or a senior party member to claim that the AK Party will be closed down.

Haşim Kılıç, the president of the Constitutional Court, speaking to a journalist from Referans daily, said unequivocally that the decision taken by the court when the time comes would enhance democracy in Turkey, reinforce the secular pillar of the republic and boost the rule of law.

I wouldn't be so masterful to depict the expected decision of the Constitutional Court as the president of the court did with a stroke of simple brushes in his interview to Referans.

Nobody expects the Constitutional Court to go against the grain. It accepted the Supreme Court of Appeals chief prosecutor's indictment unanimously and decided to open up a case for party closure, didn't it? Whatever the final decision, it will be portrayed as good for democracy and secularism as well as suitable for the rule of law.

If Prime Minister Erdoğan is sincere when he says he believes the court will not close his party, he is alone in his judgment. Members of his council of ministers confide in their close friends and almost all of them are negative in their expectations. I haven't come across a single party member, neither senior nor junior, who predicts the survival of the AK Party. Once in a while their hope increases, only to be brought down again after hearing from more senior members.

I think there is no use going after the source of the Reuters story since the story itself reflects the common understanding of the party closure issue.

What will happen next? When the party is closed down by the Constitutional Court, will the AK Party leadership accept its fate and leave the political scene without making any fuss or will it remain in politics by setting up a new party and challenging the status quo by any means possible?

If history is any guide, after each party closure we saw very few politicians leave politics. The majority remained more determined than ever and tried to make their comeback more forcefully. Erdoğan is a fighter. He overcame restrictions put before him by some courts in 2001 and became prime minister soon after. He will try to do the same if he is going to be stripped of his political rights.

History repeats itself more frequently in Turkey than in any other country.

The only reservation which would hinder the closure of the AK Party is the historical fact of the futility of party closure. When some outside forces put their foot into the political arena and force a party to be closed, they manage to extract that result, but they cannot change the public's attitude toward their own choice. When the time comes for the public to feel free to elect their representatives, they always go against the imposers' will.

So, what is the use of closing a party if that party will regain its force and make its comeback sooner than any expectation?