European Union's Views On The Turkish Democracy
The European Union administrators try to force Turkey to change secular system of Turkey into a system called ILIMLI ISLAM (see: www.urunlu.com.tr/gorusler/Globalization.html), which is an irrational combination of Islamic laws and the altered democracy.
It is known by everybody that this caricature style of regime which does not exist on the surface of the world is the project of Mr. Bush who wants to take Middle-East and Asia under his rule by using Islamic principals merged with so called democracy: ILIMLI ISLAM.
In recent years in those countries such as Ukraine, Georgia , Serbia , the administrations have changed and these countries turned into pro-USA countries. These changes are greatly supported by Turkish ex-leftist writers who are now todays liberals. Some of these so-called intellectual writers are writers of the best seller newspapers of Turkey; some of them are the owners of these newspapers which are financially supported via under-table monetary funds as similarly was done previously in Ukraine , Georgia and Serbia .
Moreover considering the declarations of Mr. Lagendijk, Mr. Miliband, Mr. Barroso and Mr.Rehn, EU also stands by this ILIMLI ISLAM project. And the executives of EU become a part in every discussion in Turkey. They attacked on the legal system of Turkey. Though they do neither have any right to interfere into a sovereign countrys constitutional system nor they are eligible to pass any judgment on the system of legal norms and of the courts of Turkey.
The US and her followers such as EU (proven by the endeavors of Mr. Lagendijk, Mr. Rehn, Mr. Barroso and especially by the Foreign Minister of Britain Mr.Miliband) want to force the people of Turkey to accept the pro-religious regime as the regime of Turkey. They are supporting, using and manipulating AKPs Islamic tendencies. These tries are not for the benefit of the Turkish people but that of the European and American expedient self interests. They are doing this just for United States and European Unions self-interest and they despise and degrade the judicial system of Turkey.
Democracy is a system which has been applied in the history in several countries in different forms; it is a form of ruling system of a country and its people. The crux of the matter in correct understanding of democracy lies on a single structure composed of non separable two faces. The country's rulers must be elected by citizens or by some group that is stated either in a written form of Social Agreement or verbal traditional understanding of that country. The ruler may be a President, a Dictator (such as Hitler), a Pope (who is elected by the clerics called cardinals) or a King (or Sultan). Let us call it DEMOCRACY AS PROCEDURE. In addition to that, in every modern country there are some unquestionable statements founded by the founding fathers of the country. This implies a vital principle which the Ruler must obey to existing values cited in the Constitution (or Social Contract) established during the creation of the State. That is namely, the ruler after being elected to the power it will not, cannot, should not violate the initial basis of that Nation on which is established, as they say in USA , by Founding Fathers. Namely, let us call it "DEMOCRACY AS PROCESS". This DEMOCRACY AS PROCESS should not be altered in accordance with the rulers own belief and his own religious views.
The DEMOCRACY AS PROCEDURE for a country is obligatory but it is not adequate. The proof of this situation is the administration applied by the Nazis. To have a democracy in real meaning, the rulers of the country must stand by the configuration and the structure of that country. There is an absolute necessity for the rulers to abide by the essence of the system which makes them the rulers of the country and the civilization that established on plausible bases which humanity have reached throughout the history. Although Hitler came into power by election, (which is the application of DEMOCRACY AS PROCEDURE) he followed a rule of force administration and he undermined the human rights and the civilization. He did not improve the basis established by the Founding Fathers, over and above he destroyed the democratic order of Germany.
It is now clear that the democracy may be in existence as far as "DEMOCRACY AS PROCEDURE" and "DEMOCRACY AS PROCESS" applications prevails and the Rulers obey the rules and principles of the Nation's system on which the country was created. But it is also very clear that if the DEMOCRACY AS PROCESS ceases to be exist or annulled from the Constitution or if the "DEMOCRACY AS PROCESS" of ruling the country is contrary to the vision and rules of the established rational and scientific rules by substituting by religious edicts and Fatwas the democracy is meaningless concept void of any value whatsoever and it only becomes clownery per se. If this is so then it does not carry any value whether ruling party got 47% of popular vote or the 99 percent of it; if the "DEMOCRACY AS PROCESS" of the ruling the country is altering principles of the core of foundations' .
For the case of Turkey , AKP is elected by the 47% of the country as the political power. The principles of Turkey , established by the Founding Fathers, are; laicism, complete independence, unitary state, sovereignty based on nation and sovereignty applied by the Turkish Grand National Assembly. Within these principles, state is located in a position that is totally disinterested in religion. And this position is ensured by the foundations of the Republic. And the free worship of the people is guaranteed and provided by the core of the system.
Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, when he constituted new Turkish Nation, he positioned the core of the plausible Western civilization instead of the situated Islamic Laws taken over the Ottoman Empire . This plausible core of the Western countries, which essentially makes them Western, ingrained in the administration mechanism of these countries. This core can never be offered to be changed in these countries and it is protected as unchangeable principle. In the process followed by the AKP, the core of the system, which is valid and effective since 1923, has been tried to be changed in many ways. The main aims of these efforts are to apply religious laws instead of scientific rules and to change the principles based on unitary state and laicism. These efforts are aims to remove the DEMOCRACY AS PROCESS and to change the core of the system.
Just accepting and applying DEMOCRACY AS PROCEDURE is not only unscientific but also in a malevolent manner. This malevolent manner is going to come out by imposing their own subjective appraisals. And this is nothing but a dictatorship which aims to change the core of the system by the use of subtle forces. This dictatorship is a longing to theocratic dictatorship. Considering the methods of canvassing by meeting the financial needs of the voters, it can not be accepted as legitimate for AKP to be the democratic party. In addition to that, in every dead-end argument, AKP tried to make a referendum assuming that they can get what they want from the public with the same methods of canvassing but more importantly by offering the public what they can not reject. Such as making a referendum about Do you want a religious President or not? This is an irremissible action. Atatürk explains what a referendum means for Turkey; Friends, What we had done and what is going to be done for our revolutionary reforms is to continue to keep the road of light that of enlightened for the goal of bringing brightness and salvation to those ignorant masses. Any attempt to call a referendum for any matter which may hinder our Republic and impede our wish to reach to the level of Western civilization means not only sheer ignorance but also treason.
Revolutionary reforms can not be done by a plebiscite in any country whose eighty percent of population has been left utterly ignorant.
The effort of AKP to change the DEMOCRACY AS PROCESS by referendum had rejections from the elite people because that was an attempt to change the core of Turkey s principles. It is clear and open that AKPs claim that it is improving the democracy in Turkey is not true since it is clear now to see the regress on the principles of the core established by the Founding Fathers.
To understand the importance of foundation principles of Turkey and how these principles make Turkey an independent country, one should understand the independence history of Turkey . The independence of Turkey from the European powers such as England and France was the expense of the Turkish blood spent on the war fields of the Dardanelle in 1915 and on the fields of Anatolia until 1922.The founder of this country and republic who defeated European powers at the war zones accepted the main Western value of secularism as the principle of the foundation of Turkey. Moreover, Turkey had lifted the political capitulations in 1920s which had been in existence since 1838. Therefore no one can act as a commissar of a capitulation administration since Turkey had abolished this unjust application with the victory over the invasive forces, which are so-called the biggest defenders of human rights today.
European Unions understanding of democracy is questionable. European Union authorities defend and support democracy only for their self-interest. Why did not they condemn the interrogation of the valuable Turkish intellectual writers and academicians? Moreover why did not they protest the destruction of one of the most important opposition party of AKP, the Labor Party? Why do they not visit to condemn British Empire for her involvement in unjust war in Iraq ? But now, they accuse the Legal System of Turkey to support AKPs ILIMLI ISLAM project. However, there are very important accusations against the AKP in the indictment prepared by the prosecutor of the High Court.
AKP is being accused of being the central threat against the core of the foundations of the Turkish Republic . The fundamental base of political Islam is the religious law. In a country, in which religious laws are applied, there is no democracy but there is totalitarian administration. Political Islam aspires religious laws by using democracy. Why EU does not opine impartially and objectively about the accusations of the prosecutor of High Court? It is very clear that these accusations are very serious and they emplace AKP in a position that it uses methods which are against democracy and hence principles of EU. So if the Judicial Power of the country is carrying suspicious doubts on the administration of AKP, why should not AKP be stand trial? If they really do not have any relation with the accusations, they would be acquitted and all the doubts would be cleared up. But if they are really guilty, EU commissioners should appreciate the judicial system of Turkey . Therefore there is no need for the EU administrators to worry. This trial will empower the democracy in Turkey which is a wish(!) of EU.
COSKUN URUNLU
15 APRIL 2008, ANKARA