However, some would like to see democracy as a mode of administration where they would be allowed to do everything they want, say everything they think and abuse and exploit this. Is it possible to say or do everything in democracies? Is democracy open to exploitation and unable to protect itself?
Despite its flaws, problems and controversial aspects, democracy is the most advanced and improved mode of governance that mankind has invented. It is not possible to argue that this most advanced mode of governance lacks any instruments to ensure its survival and that it allows others to exploit it. Democracy is a regime of institutions and rules. These institutions and rules are protected by a constitution and the law. Democracy introduces a strong mechanism of inspection over political, legal and media institutions. In democracies, universities are free and autonomous, and think tanks play a crucial role. Political parties are indispensable parts of a democracy. It is not possible to speak of a democracy in a country unless there are multiple parties on the political stage. However, in democracies, the dissolution of a political party is an option in case they contribute to the violation of the law and democratic principles. But it should be noted that the dissolution of a political party should be made by the people who withdraw their support from it rather than by judicial mechanisms.
Democracy offers freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. But these freedoms of expression and of assembly are not limitless. Everything can be said and promoted in democracies without inciting violence. As underlined in the Venice Criteria, the boundaries of democracy are violated when violence and terrorism are praised, and there is a price for doing so. Under these criteria, the dissolution of a political party is justified when it uses violence as a political means and a tool, or relies on violence to destroy fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed under the constitution and eliminates the democratic constitutional order. One of the most recent controversies and discussions in our domestic politics is whether the discourse and actions of the Peace and Democracy Party (BDP) have violated these boundaries.
Above all, political parties seek political administration in democracy. For this reason, they have to appeal to all citizens and people; in other words, they have to be a national party. Thus, in a democracy, there cannot be a political party that focuses on a certain ethnicity or region. They are expected to embrace all citizens of the country. In democracies, the political parties have relevant bodies and institutions. The parties make their decisions in these bodies. In other words, they are autonomous. In democracies, the political parties do not act in accordance with the decisions taken by other illegal organizations. This means they act autonomously before referring to democratic autonomy.
Most important, in democracies, political parties distance themselves from violence and terrorism. They dismiss violence and terrorism; they agree that it is not possible to justify violence and terrorism regardless of the gravity of the problems. The discourses and actions of the BDP and other previous pro-Kurdish political parties that have been dissolved before have been discussed. Most recently, an intimate meeting between BDP deputies and Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) militants also raised questions and outrage among the people.
It has always been a controversy as to whether the BDP has become a national party and whether it has been able to act independently of the PKK. The intimate embrace between the PKK militants and the BDP deputies in public erased many questions in people’s minds. This means that while a political party is supposed to distance itself from violence, the BDP embraces violence. Therefore, there will be a price for this in a democracy. The independent and impartial judiciary acts motu proprio in accordance with the laws without prior authorization. It has initiated the process; the independent judiciary now holds the discretion.
Likewise, in a democracy, it is only normal that this issue is discussed in the media and in public. There could be different views; and this is a requirement of democracy.
The political discussion of this matter, its referral to Parliament and the recent discussion on dropping the immunities of BDP deputies are all also part of a democratic process. In short, democracy is not a regime that is fully open to exploitation where people or parties can get away with doing as they please.
*Professor İdris Bal is a Kütahya deputy, and a member of both the Foreign Affairs Commission and the Inquiry into Coups Commission.
(Today’s Zaman)
