THE "BLACK STREAK" OF "GREEN" TURKEY

Probably, rarely in history has the future of any state depended on the person who governed it. On 30 July, the Constitutional Court of Turkey issued its ruling on a case that disturbed the country's public for many months. The ruling Justice and Development Party (JDP) led by Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan was not closed, which upset the opposition and Prosecutor-General Abdurrahman Yancinkaya.

In order to satisfy the suit filed by the prosecutor-general, the court was short of only one vote. If seven, not six judges had supported sanctions against the ruling party, the situation in Turkey would be developing according to a different scenario now.

Nor did the court ban the political activities of several dozen JDP functionaries, including President Abdullah Gul and Prime Minister Erdogan.

In any case, the judges supported the idea of halving budget allocations to the JDP in 2008.

Even people who are far from politics realized that the five-year ban on the political activities of JDP leaders would have closed an entire page in the modern history of Turkey, because Erdogan's supporters would not have won the subsequent parliamentary elections. The Turkish government itself does not hide that the rating of the ruling party depends on one person.

The scenario according to which the court would have accepted the prosecutor-general's suit was actively discussed. In this case, due to the lack of a ban on political activity, Erdogan would have returned to parliament as an independent deputy, uniting 300 "non-partisan" deputies form the ruling faction.

Many people among the staunch opponents of the prime minister hoped until the last moment that against the background of the court's decision to satisfy the suit of the Republican People's Party on the hijab ban at institutions of higher education, the court would support the prosecutor-general, "accusing" the ruling party of violating the holy of holies of Turkish statehood - the principle of "secularism", which would finally put an end to the seven-year rule of Erdogan. We should not forget that in 1998, the Constitutional Court banned the Welfare Party for using religion for political purposes, and in 2001 - the Well-Being Party, the predecessor of Erdogan's party.

However, the change of power never happened.

In early August, domestic political tensions subsided, plunging the country into uncertainty and economic stagnation. As was expected, the Constitutional Court's verdict did not lead to political unity, while the opponents failed to overcome the abyss. Nor did public discussions take place.

Meanwhile, the country was dogged by one tragedy after another. First, the terrorist attack in Istanbul claimed 17 lives. Many doubted that the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) had a hand in the explosion, because the terrorists who are fighting the Turkish army in the southeastern provinces of the country may have lost "foreign support" because of their attacks on innocent residents of major cities.

However, the preliminary results of the investigation forced the PKK to acknowledge their involvement in the terrorist attack.

Others described the bloody terrorist attack in Istanbul as an act of revenge by supporters of the Ergenekon organization more than 40 members of which were arrested in July on suspicion of preparing a coup d'etat. According to a statement by the Turkish Interior Ministry, along with plans to physically eliminate well-known public and political figures, Ergenekon members also tried to use peaceful demonstrations to overthrow Erdogan's government. However, the country's authorities denied that the organization was involved in the explosions.

Literally a few days after this terrorist attack, Turkey was shaken by a report on a new tragedy in the city of Konya. In the early hours of 1 August, an explosion of a liquid gas tank damaged the three-storey building of a women's hostel and claimed 18 lives. Dozens of girls were injured.

The incident put the domestic political upheavals in Turkey on the back burner, and even the news about the change in the leadership of the general staff was perceived with restraint. Anyone who has visited Turkey has seen for themselves how important a role the army plays in the life of Turkish society. Sociological surveys show that the rating of the country's armed forces is much higher than that of any Turkish politician. Heading the 700,000-strong Turkish army, General Ilker Basbug replaced Yasar Buyukanit in the post of chief of the general staff on 4 August. His predecessor preferred to stay away from domestic political problems, which untied his hands in the fight against terrorists both inside the country and in Northern Iraq. It is still not known whether Basbug will continue Buyukanit's policy or prefer a harder line on the government.

Analysts in Turkey see eye to eye that the general, who is noted for his bravery, took charge of the army at a very difficult time for the country. The PKK is clearly becoming more active, which is proved by the explosion on the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline. It is notable that the new Turkish army chief of staff does make a difference between the PKK and the pro-Kurdish Democratic Society Party (DSP) which favours a dialogue with the PKK. An example is known when on the orders of Basbug, only representatives of the DSP were not invited to a function hosted by the army leadership. When journalists asked him about the reason for such a radical step, the general replied: "How would I have explained this invitation to my subordinates, if even one soldier had been killed by the PKK somewhere in the country on that evening?"

Basbug's most famous statement was made in October last year during his visit to southeastern provinces of the country. The general openly said that over the 23 years of its fight against the PKK, the Turkish army has been unable to achieve the desired result. "If you ask me whether the fight of the Turkish army against the PKK has been successful since 1984, I will say no. If we had been fighting successfully, the terrorists would have been wiped out a long time ago," Basbug said, calling on the military to wage their anti-terrorist fight within the framework of the law and make a distinction between civilians and PKK members.

Moreover, Basbug is known for his sharp criticism of Washington's policy on the PKK and for his negative attitude to any changes in relations with Greece and Southern Cyprus. A detailed analysis of the new army chief of staff is not accidental because Turkey is a country that has experienced two coup attempts. The Turkish army has always played a weighty role in politics. It is no secret that in its foreign policy, the Turkish army has always taken account of the interests of the general staff, especially in terms of relations with the USA, the European Union, Iraq and Armenia.

Before the papers published the text of the decision of the Supreme Military Council to change the army leadership, the opposition Republican People's Party, which has the second biggest faction in the Turkish parliament, accused the country's leadership of conspiracy with the leadership of the general staff. The reason is that for the first time in many years, the Council did not sack a general and bought an armoured car with state money in order to ensure the personal security of the former army chief of staff, Yasar Buyukanit. According opponents of the ruling elite, such expenses from the state treasury testify that the general staff and the government have close positions, which is unacceptable from a legal point of view, for the constitution bans the army from interfering in politics. Turkey's foreign policy also leaves much to be desired. In recent weeks, the media have started active debates on the possible normalization of relations between Ankara and Yerevan. Opinions differ sharply - dozens of well-known journalists and public figures speak out "for" and "against" the rapprochement between the two countries.

Oil to the flames is also added by the fact that although less than two months are left till the September match between the Turkish and Armenian national football teams in Yerevan, Ankara is still taking a wait-and-see position, declining to comment on the Armenian president's invitation to the Turkish head of state.

The Armenian question has also left its mark on Turkey's relations with another neighbour - Iran. It is interesting that ahead of Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinezhad's visit to Ankara, Tehran, just like the West, used the "Armenian card". Specifically, Ankara received an unofficial offer from Iran to mediate the dialogue between Turkey and Armenia. The Turkish Foreign Ministry reacted to this quite harshly, saying that Ankara and Yerevan maintain direct contacts anyway and don't need any mediators, including Iranian ones. In response, Tehran, having anticipated this move, rejected Turkey's mediation within the framework of the international negotiations on Iran's nuclear problem. The refusal of the Iranian leader to visit the mausoleum of the founder of the Turkish Republic, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, during his visit to Ankara also drew attention.

All the aforesaid developments in and around Turkey, coupled with the resumption of the work on the text of the country's new constitution, allow us to say that the western neighbour of the South Caucasus is unlikely to overcome "the black streak" any time soon. A positive development of events there can be expected no earlier than the municipal elections of 2009. The ruling party has spent too much power on its fight against political opponents and needs time for adaptation. For the time being, it is too early to talk about the strengthening of Ankara's role in the region and acceleration of its integration into the EU.