This is history, or I assumed it was history, until I was reminded of it by a veteran commentator who drew parallels between the Cold War and the latest political developments in Turkey. Mehmet Ali Birand, who is the anchor for Kanal-D's news bulletin, wrote in his Posta column that the people who started the process for the closure of the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) regard the political scene in Turkey with a Cold War mentality. He refers to this strategy as “MAD” (Mutually Assured Destruction).  

According to him, the other side became irritated by the AK Party's attempt to lift the headscarf ban at universities by changing two articles of the Constitution and felt forced to make its own move by opening the court case against the ruling party. They directed all their missiles toward the AK Party and, unless the party in power reciprocates by stepping back, they are ready to strike with all their might, regardless of the results, he says. “They are even ready to obliterate Turkey,” he argues.

I liked this MAD analogy very much. It is descriptive and eye opening.  

The pertinent questions we should ask at this moment are obvious: There are mad people around us; we see their fingerprints everywhere. But who are they? Why are they so upset that they are willing to harm the country they love so much?

Well, we cannot find any clue about their identity, apart from a loose adjective Birand uses in his column. We have to look for this information elsewhere.

Posta, where Birand wrote the article in question, belongs to the Doğan Media Group. Milliyet, another newspaper belonging to the same group, had another eye-opening article by Yaman Törüner, a columnist who happens to be a former central bank head. The article, titled “Who is going to govern the country?” came out days before the general elections of July 22, 2007.

Törüner made a point of disclosing a “secret” that was unknown to many in this country. He announced that the real rulers of the world aren't the people who are in politics running for office, but the people of wealth. He elaborated his point by defining the “real power centers” as media owners and columnists, bureaucrats, members of the judiciary, artists and their financiers. For Turkey, he also added the “Armed Forces.”

We are not talking about a lunatic or conspiracy theorist saying “humbug,” but a no-nonsense former governor of the central bank who has a column in a serious paper belonging to the largest media group in Turkey. He warned the electorate in his article right before the general election that, regardless of who they cast their votes for, they weren't electing the real rulers. The real rulers were waiting on the sidelines. “Constitutions provide a legal framework for unelected rulers,” he humbly wrote.

We can now turn to the MAD strategy raised by Birand in his Posta article. He was speaking of the determination of some people to get rid of the AK Party because it crossed the acceptable limits by changing two articles in the Constitution to lift the headscarf ban at universities. Törüner also mentioned this point in his Milliyet article by saying that the headscarf ban issue was off limits for political parties; no politician can touch it.

But the AK Party did exactly this. It crossed the acceptable borders allocated to politicians by the real rulers. Using the analogy provided by the largest media group in Turkey, we can say that this is the reason why all these missiles are aimed at the AK Party by the real rulers. Politicians come and go, but people with real power remain in their positions.

Let us remember who the real rulers were according to the Milliyet article: Media owners and columnists, bureaucrats, members of the judiciary. And who is causing problems for the AK Party today? Certain media owners, columnists, bureaucrats and members of the judiciary. We don't know for sure whether the armed forces have a hand in all this.

I may stop here in my analysis, since there is no use going any further. The MAD strategy adopted by the “powers that be” in Turkey is a product of a so-called unruly party that has crossed the line of its allocated borders -- the borders drawn by none other than the same unelected rulers.

This is the character of Turkish democracy so far. I wonder if it is also the case in other democracies. In his article Törüner claims that what he depicts as a political reality in Turkey is a universal tendency, applicable everywhere.