Is The EU Commission There?

The most recent proposal submitted to Parliament entitles prosecutors to demand the arrest of people on “reasonable doubt.” This is a major deviation from international standards. As Aydın Albayrak notes in Today's Zaman, “The threshold of the burden of proof required for obtaining a search warrant has been reduced by the bill from strong, concrete evidence to mere reasonable doubt.”

Surprisingly -- I should say unsurprisingly -- although Parliament has not yet passed the bill, a prosecutor has investigated a journalist on the basis of “reasonable doubt.”

This is not the whole story. According to the same proposal, it is possible to confiscate the properties of people who commit a crime against the government or the Constitution. Again quoting Albayrak, “One of the amendments in the bill makes it possible for the government to seize the assets of people and institutions convicted of a crime against constitutional order and of an attempt to topple the government in peacetime.”

In the past, mainly in the heyday of Kemalism, an act against laicism was classified as a crime .Many people were arrested for crimes committed against laicism. However, we never did understand what a “crime against laicism” meant. Those days are now gone. But we have a similar problem today. Repeating the structural mistakes of the Kemalists, the Islamists of today have proposed the formula “crime against the government.” This vague paradigm is likely to destroy the rule of law in Turkey.

There is more to this. Despite experiencing problems, Turkey has had a system of private property ownership for years. It was not just a secular tradition; Islamic tradition also respects property law. Private property ownership is one of the major principles of Islam. Indeed, the principle was weakened during several periods of crisis in the past. However, in general, the ownership of private property is one of the major principles of Turkish social and political life. No political group has ever tried to do away with this or put it at serious risk.

Thus, what the government is proposing is a major departure from the historic patterns of Turkish social and political life. It is also a major departure from universal standards.

More upsetting still is the silence of the European Commission. Is this acceptable from the European perspective? What does this mean based on the lens of the Copenhagen criteria?

The EU's latest progress report was important. But does the EU think that its entire role is to write an annual report and then remain silent?

The crisis of democracy and rule of law in Turkey have now plunged to a new low. But time does matter in Turkey. The European Commission should not remain inactive while observing all these upsetting developments here. It is not the political duty of the commission to focus on the democracy problems of candidate states. But the EU acquis communautaire (in other words, EU law) requires the commission to deal directly with such problems.

Turkey has never been a strong democracy. As Turks, we are accustomed to living in a form of democracy in which there are always problems. However, new pathologies such as “arresting people on the basis of reasonable doubt” and “confiscating private property for a crime against the government” are too much, even for us.

Many argue that such political strategies -- I should say mistakes -- are bringing Turkey back to the '90s. The real fact could be worse. Turkey could even be on its way back to the '70s. Recently, prominent journalist Cengiz Çandar wrote that present-day Turkey reminds him of Lebanon before the civil war. He might be right. Turkey is now showing serious signs of great chaos. Therefore, it is high time for the European Commission to take an active role. It is clear that the EU's leverage on Turkey is still great. No political interest should stop the utilization of this leverage in favor of Turkish democracy.

GÖKHAN BACIK (Cihan/Today's Zaman)