"I SURRENDER TO THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE"

On 6 May the Turkish parliament again failed to elect a representative of the ruling Justice and Development Party (AK), Abdullah Gul, president of the country. Not enough deputies were present in parliament for a decisive vote. Gul said afterwards that he would not stand in presidential elections again.

The election of a new Turkish president has thus turned into a full-blown political crisis. If a constitutional, democratic solution cannot be found, the situation could take an unpredictable course, putting statehood at risk.

Turkish society and politics are becoming increasingly polarized. The current president, whose term expires on 16 May, the army, leading trade unions and public organizations, the vice-chancellors of state universities, the main opposition parties and some business leaders line up one side. On the other stand the government and its Justice and Development Party that won a convincing victory in the parliamentary elections in 2002 and reinforced its position in local elections.

President Sezer thinks that external forces (meaning the USA and the wider West) are nurturing plans to turn secular Turkey into a so-called "liberal Islamic republic and present it as a model for Muslim countries. "However, Turkey can be a model for the surrounding region only as a secular, democratic and law-governed state and is ready to share its experience of statehood in this regard," he said.

The political opposition protested to the Constitutional Court about the first round of presidential elections on the basis that the 367 deputies required for a legal sitting were not present in parliament. The leader of the Republican People's Party, Deniz Baykal, said, "The Turkish Constitution requires the election of the president on a basis that ensures agreement between the parties." In other words, when proposing a candidate for the post of president the parliamentary majority should take into account the opinion of the minority and public reaction.

Opponents of the AK Party organized a mass demonstration in Istanbul at the end of April to defend secular traditions in which around one million people took part, according to various estimates. However, it is no secret in Turkey itself or the rest of the world that influential military circles lead opposition to the election of an AK member as the country's new president. In recent years since Turkey has begun to work towards its long-held goal of entering the European Union, the role of the military in public life has noticeably declined, and they have silently concurred with reforms required by this process to strengthen civilian control of the armed forces. The military refrained from public expression of their dissatisfaction with the reforms linked to the process of Euro-integration. It looks as though the imminent presidential elections and the possibility of the election of a religiously-inclined politician have forced the Turkish generals to break their silence. In April several senior officers in the General Staff issued a statement that cast doubt on the Justice and Development Party's commitment to the principles of a secular state which, in the context of Turkey's past and present, sounded highly threatening.

It seemed at first that Recep Tayyip Erdogan's refusal to stand for the presidency himself and his recommendation of Gul for the post would be acceptable for public and political circles that feared the excessive growth in the influence of Islamist forces. A commentator for the business newspaper Referans, Cengiz Candar, described Gul as "the best choice" for president. The editor-in-chief of Hurriyet, which usually supports secular parties, one of Turkey's best-known journalists, Ertugrul Ozkok, devoted two columns to praising Gul and criticizing secular parties for their inability to reform.

Abdullah Gul is an economist by education and a diplomat by nature. He is the foreign minister and at the same time the deputy chairman of the government and enjoys respect both at home and abroad.

However, the fears of the military and the interests of the opposition took precedence. They have nothing constructive to offer against the AK Party which has presided over record economic growth in the country while at the same time curbing inflation and cutting corruption and bureaucracy in the government apparatus. The opposition has, therefore, set out to bring about early parliamentary elections and to turn the public debate and political battle away from a rational contest between government programmes and into a choice between a "secular" and "Islamist" future for the country. If events follow this course, then it is thought that the Justice and Development Party could lose its current large majority in parliament and the opposition could as a minimum gain a more acceptable figure as head of state.

At the same time the opposition is hurrying to consolidate. Splits and squabbles between the secular parties lost them voters and this allowed the AK Party, which had won only one-third of the votes in the previous elections, to win its comfortable majority in parliament. Fearing that on their own they might fail again to cross the electoral barrier, the right-wing Anavatan (Motherland) and Dogru Yol (True Path) parties have announced their merger. Trends towards integration can be seen on the left-wing of the Turkish political spectrum too. If the electoral cards fall in their favour, then the AK Party's opponents are not against trying to form their own coalition government.

On 1 May the Turkish Constitutional Court announced its verdict, annulling by nine votes to two the results of the first round of the presidential elections on 27 April. This appears to confirm that the opposition's calculations and tactics were right. It is the first time this has happened in the history of the Turkish Republic. Announcing the verdict, the deputy chairman of the Constitutional Court, Hasim Kilic, said that no fewer than 367 deputies should take part in the first two rounds of the presidential elections. The court considered the situation that arose during the first round to be an attempt to change parliament's internal statutes. The Constitutional Court's decision has significantly complicated, and according to many experts, blocked further elections for president and made preparation for early parliamentary elections the main domestic political issue in Turkey. The failed attempts to vote on 6 May are further confirmation of this.

Speaking in parliament, Turkey's Prime Minister Erdogan described as a "shot against democracy" the Constitutional Court's decision to recognize as invalid the first round of the presidential elections. "The decision of a minority has pronounced a sentence on the will of the people. We respect the decision of the court, but it has blocked election of the president in parliament. But we have more respect for the will of the people, so we are calling everyone to the polls. They will show the true will of the people," Erdogan said.

He went on to call for changes to the Constitution to allow the people and not parliament to elect the president. The thrust of Erdogan's speech was that if the democratic parliamentary system is blocked, then the presidential election should be by popular suffrage.

The president also proposed that parliament should be elected for four years, not five, and the president for five years, not seven. At the same time the president would be allowed to remain in his post for two terms, not one.

The head of the Constitutional Court, Tulay Tugcu, said for her part that Erdogan's words were "irresponsible" and the Ankara Prosecutor's Office has even instituted a case in this regard. This whole exchange of statements and gestures should be seen in the context of campaigning for the forthcoming elections. Parliament has approved the proposal of the Central Election Commission to hold the early parliamentary elections on 22 July. The proposal had earlier been approved by parliament's constitutional commission. The AK Party's proposal to reduce the age limit for election candidates from 30 to 25 is expected to be considered and approved.

The electoral campaign promises to be bitter. How the judges, who favour the head of state, (Sezer has announced that he will continue in his post until the election of a new president) and the military behave during the campaign will be important. The political sympathies and antipathies of the military are obvious but it's important that there be no crude interference by the generals in the political process or influence on the election campaign. If there is, then Turkey can forget about joining the European Union for a long time.

The EU's enlargement commissioner, Olli Rehn, told journalists "…this is a test case if the Turkish armed forces respect democratic secularism and democratic values" which are the basis of Turkey's entry into the European Union. Rehn went on to say "…it is important that the military leave the remit of democracy to the democratically elected government".

Council of Europe Secretary-General Terry Davis spoke in a similar vein: "In a democracy, the military are under the command of democratically elected state authorities. The armed forces do not have any democratic legitimacy of their own and therefore cannot have a political role. I am shocked that the military in a member state of the Council of Europe should behave in this way in the midst of a democratic and constitutional process such as the election of the head of state. I call on all political parties to take a clear stand against interference by the armed forces in the political process. These are serious signals which I hope will be heard by the Turkish military and political elite."

Meanwhile, parliament is continuing to debate not only early elections but also a popular vote for president. If the relevant changes are made to the Constitution, then the elections could take place in the autumn. The AK Party candidate could again be Abdullah Gul. Observers say that after withdrawing his candidacy from discussion in parliament, he said, "…I surrender to the will of the people. The nation will make the right decision."

Erdogan himself needs to keep the party united and ensure its victory in the forthcoming parliamentary elections. As a pragmatic politician he has probably learnt from the past experience of Turkish parties, which lost their party chairman when their leader was elected president and descended into internal fights. This happened to the Anavatan Party when its leader Turgut Ozal became the ninth president of Turkey and to Dogru Yol when its leader Suleyman Demirel became the 10th president.

The world is closely following the twists and turns of Turkish politics. Bearing in mind the strategic partnership between our states and the fraternal relations of our peoples, the situation is being followed with even greater interest in Azerbaijan. The question for us is not which party forms the government or gets its candidate elected president. Whatever happens, there is no doubt at all that there is no threat to Azerbaijani-Turkish relations. But we have a vital interest in fraternal Turkey resolving the current political crisis peacefully and democratically, as soon as possible and in complete accordance with the Constitution and continuing its steady progress in modernity and development.