by Joe Parkinson and Jay Solomon January 21 2014
1. The Prime Minister has repeatedly attacked you and Hizmet in recent weeks. Do you believe that your alliance with his faction of the AKP is now definitively at an end?
If we can talk about an alliance, it was around shared values of democracy,
universal human rights and freedoms — never for political parties or candidates.
In 2010 constitutional referendum I said that if these democratic reforms, which
are in line with European Union’s requirements for membership, were done by CHP
before, I would have supported them.
A broad spectrum of Turkish people, including Hizmet participants, supported
AKP for democratizing reforms, for ending the military tutelage over politics
and for moving Turkey forward in the EU accession process. We have always
supported what we believed to be right and in line with democratic principles.
But we have also criticized what we saw as wrong and contrary to those
principles.
Our values or stance have not changed. We will continue to advocate for
democracy. Whether the stance or actions of the political actors are consistent
with their earlier record should be decided by the Turkish people and unbiased
observers.
2. You have enjoyed a decade-long alliance
with Mr. Erdogan – what is the moment that has most upset you about his
leadership?
Just to clarify again, if we can talk about an alliance, it was values and
principles based. Throughout the AKP period, we supported democratizing reforms
and criticized and opposed anti-democratic actions. For instance, in 2005 we
criticized the draft anti-terror law that defined terror crimes too broadly and
risked harming freedoms.
During the period between 2003 and 2010, the overall trend was toward
democratic reforms and a broad spectrum of Turkish population supported them.
This was evident in the constitutional referendum of 2010 which received 58%
approval. Indeed Turkey has made economic and democratic progress over the last
15 years.
But we would like these democratizing reforms to continue. Turkish people who
supported the constitutional amendments of 2010 with the phrase “good but not
sufficient” are upset that in the last two years the democratic progress is now
being reversed. A new, civilian-drafted, democratic constitution would
consolidate the democratic gains and would anchor Turkey at democratic values of
EU. Unfortunately, that effort has now been abandoned.
3. What is your reaction to the PM’s moves to
purge the leadership of the police force?
If the members of the police force or any other government agency have
breached the laws of the country or the rules of their institutions, nobody can
defend such actions and they should be subjected to legal or institutional
investigation. If, however, they have not done anything illegal and they have
not violated their institutional rules, and they are simply being profiled based
on their worldviews or affinities, and subjected to discriminatory treatment,
then such treatment cannot be reconciled with democracy, rule of law and
universal human rights.
Shuffles and purges based on ideology, sympathy or worldviews was a practice
of the past that the present ruling party promised to stop while campaigning
before elections. It is ironic that members of the police force and judiciary
who were applauded as heroes a few months ago are now being shuffled in the
middle of winter without any investigation.
4. What is the reason that Hizmet actively
encouraged their students to choose a career path in the police and the
judiciary?
First of all let’s correct the premise in the question. I can only speak
about my personal advocacy, which was addressed to Turkish public in general. I
have always believed that education is the best way to nurture individuals and
build a solid foundation for a society. Every social problem starts with the
individual and can be solved for the long term at the level of the individual.
Systemic, institutional or policy level solutions are destined for failure when
the individual is neglected. Therefore my first and foremost advocacy was for
education.
It is also why many people who agreed with my ideas have established various
types of educational institutions from dormitories, exam prep centers, to
private schools and free tutoring centers. These institutions provided a wider
segment of the society access to quality education, which were hitherto
available only to a privileged few.
I have encouraged Turkish people to be represented in all facets of the
Turkish society and in every institution of their country, because it is
important that these institutions reflect the society’s diversity. But the
choices that are made by students and their parents are shaped by many factors
such as employment opportunities and expected likelihood of upward mobility. I
am not sure how influential my advocacy has been as a factor that these families
have considered.
As far as the institutions established by Hizmet participants, I don’t have
an accurate assessment of the career choices of their graduates. But contrary to
what you may think, for students thinking of a career in the fields you
mentioned (police or judiciary), historically it has been a potential cause for
discrimination to have graduated from such institutions.
5. The government has signaled that it will
review judgments against military officers accused of plotting coups – do you
fear they are creating a new alliance against your followers? What is your
strategy to counter this?
Retrial in the light of new evidence or demonstration of improprieties in the
legal proceedings is a universal human right. If new evidence has emerged, or it
is determined that the legal procedure was flawed, then retrial becomes a legal
right. Nobody wants an innocent person to face punishment unjustly.
However, if the intention is to completely abolish the verdicts of thousands
of trials, then such a move would both undermine the credibility of the justice
system and reverse the democratic gains of the past decade. It would be very
difficult to explain such a move to the 58% of Turkish population who supported
the constitutional amendments of 2010 which made it possible to try former coup
perpetrators in civilian courts for the first time in Turkish history. It would
also present an irony as the leaders of the present government for years
championed these trials as a triumph of democracy and applauded the brave
prosecutors and judges, in their language, who took part in them. There have
also been reports of political leaders bragging about subjugating the military
leadership to the civilian authority.
The present rhetoric in which these trials are discredited and attributed to
a certain group within the judiciary presents a complete contrast to the
rhetoric of the political leaders during their ten years of governance. There is
also an element of insincerity here. When the director of the Turkish
Intelligence Service (MIT) was contacted by a prosecutor for questioning the
alleged participation of intelligence officers in the terrorist acts of KCK/PKK
units, the government immediately passed a law requiring prime minister’s
approval for investigating the intelligence director. While the ruling party
certainly had the power to do so, they did not pass a similar law to bring the
same protection to the accused chief of general staff or army commanders. This
inconsistency demonstrates that the recent rhetoric of retrials is politically
motivated rather than a desire for justice for military officers.
If implemented, such a move would be a blow to the democratic reforms of the
recent decades. It would be a dramatic reversal of the effort to remove the
military’s tutelage over democratic institutions. In Turkish history, four
elected governments have been toppled by military coups over half a century.
6. The government has targeted a range of
businesses from Koc to Dogan, slapping them with tax fines when their political
stance contrasted with Mr. Erdogan. Do you see a threat to businesses led by
Hizmet followers in light of recent events?
From the news reports I am learning that what you referred to is no longer a
threat, it is reality. The Koza group, Istikbal group and Bank Asya were
targeted with various forms of extraordinary inspections, fines, permit
cancellations, and massive unscheduled fund withdrawals, which followed negative
campaign against the bank in certain news outlets known to be close to the
ruling party.
7. President Gul is seen as a moderate leader
who can bring together various factions ranging from conservatives to liberals
and Hizmet. Would you be supportive of an AKP Mr. Gul leads as Prime Minister or
do you think he is more helpful to the country as president? Do you find a more
sympathetic audience in Mr. Gul compared to Mr. Erdogan.
We have always tried to maintain the same proximity to all political parties.
As a civil society movement, we have never advocated supporting a party or
candidate. But individual Hizmet participants have found certain parties and
candidates closer to their beliefs and values supported them out of their free
will.
Mr. Gul is currently our president. It would be inappropriate for us to
speculate about future scenarios involving his name.
8. Many of your supporters in the media have
been very positive about the CHP leadership in recent weeks – do you believe an
alliance between Hizmet and CHP is likely through the next election
cycle?
To repeat, we have never formed an alliance or partnership
with a political party or candidate. Our support or criticism has always been
around values. Such an alliance will not be made in the future either. As civil
society actor, it is imperative for us to be open to everybody in the society.
But our values are clear. Democracy, universal human rights and freedoms,
transparent and accountable governance are among these values.
When the opportunities come, Hizmet participants, just like any other citizen
will make their choices based on their values. It is possible that people who
share core values will make choices along the same lines.
