Or is a military coup better than allowing women wear headscarves in university?

BBC NEWS | World | Europe | Turkish ruling party put on trial

Prosecutor Abdurraham Yalcinkaya, who has argued that the party has become the focal point of anti-secular activities in Turkey, is appearing before judges in a closed-door session.

What does "prosecutor" mean here? Is he acting in an official capacity or is he simply representing plaintiffs? Or is himself the plaintiff? Can a "Prosecutor" act on his own initiative?

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

Informed Comment: Arato: The Turkish Constitutional Crisis and the Road Beyond

Readers will surely know that there is currently a judicial process at the Constitutional Court, initiated by the head prosecutor of the Supreme Court, seeking to close the AKP party and ban from politics over 70 of its politicians including PM Erdogan and President Gül. They may not know that, though under legal constitutional jurisdiction (Articles 68 and 69), the charges involve an incredible mélange of private statements, fully legal political acts including passing laws and constitutional amendments, and imputations of intentions that are entirely unsupported. Thus the attempt to close the AKP is not legally but politically inspired, and would reverse the results of the last two democratic elections in which the party received between 3/5 and 2/3 of parliamentary seats (though, as I would also stress, given a disastrously bad Turkish electoral rule on the bases, of 37, and 44 % of the votes). ... on June 4 the same Constitutional Court has invalidated rather innocuous amendments to Articles 10 and 42 to Turkey's Constitution, intending to permit legislation and/or administrative decisions allowing the wearing of headscarves... The big question now is whether this decision foreshadows the closing of the AKP as the majority of Turks think or, as I maintained in a long interview in the liberal Milliyet on 12 June (Haziran) the Court has now established the option of switching to a more constitutional path of defending the constitution (and enforcing consensual change) than the nuclear and self-contradictory option of party closings.

...The origins of Turkish Constitution in 1982 were highly questionable (they were typically Bonapartist!) but since the major consensual reforms Turkey does evidently have a Constitution worth defending. A lot of it is now the work of democratic instances.

Arato goes on to describe AKP's part in the constitution redrafting process, and the domestic political background of the separated-out headscarf amendments - argues that the court may not really aim for a ban of the AKP.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

This thread makes a brave attempt at analyzing the force of laws that protect civil rights, but I would submit to you that analysis of such laws is completely out of context when you're talking about Turkey. There is no bedrock principle or fundamental statement of human rights which would give you a basis for such an analysis at all. If, for example, religious freedom or freedom of speech were ever ratified say, exactly as it is in the US, such a law could still be trumped by the fundamental rule and authority in the country. To many westerners, the case against the AKP seems as though someone pulled a rabbit out of a hat after a lost election. But in Turkey, the case against the AKP is simply par for the course as the party strayed beyond the real fundamental basis for secularity in the country. The secularism established by Ataturk is the bedrock of law in Turkey, and it relies on an adherence to a Modernist nationalism of which the AKP has run afoul. So, one may argue the laws on the books, but fundamentally, in context, those laws are not the basis upon which the nation moves.

You can compare the situation to the US Bill of Rights where the Right to Free Speech is the cornerstone of American democracy. As in Turkey, it is often attacked--though it has not yet been knocked off its perch. The same threats to it that exist in Turkey also exist in the US. However, the US has not yet succumbed to the subversion of this fundamental right. Whereas Turkey has succumbed to that subversion so often in the past that such acts become part of the political operation of the country itself.

Hürriyet: Turkish people divided over AKP's closure, as 53 percent opposed (30 June 2008)

Fifty-three percent of Turks are against, and 34 percent is in favor of closing the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) for anti-secular activities, a poll in Turkey's Milliyet newspaper showed on Monday. Support to a possible ruling to close the AKP increases parallel to respondent's educational level. (UPDATED)

The poll, conducted by A&G Research with 2,403 respondents on June 14-15, showed that 53.3 percent Turks are against closing the AKP and 37.7 percent believe economic and political chaos will follow if the party is closed.    

...

A direct relationship exists between education level and support of the AKP's closure with 42.3 percent of university graduates supporting closure, and only 25.7 percent of primary educated in favor.

...

According to the poll's findings, the AKP seems to re-gain strength thanks to Turkey's Constitutional Court's decision to annul the bill lifting the headscarf ban in universities, following a steady loss of votes in polls since January.

The increase in the number of the uncommitted voters underlies recent claims that voters cannot find a political party to support

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

Hürriyet: Former Turkish prosecutor warns gov't could overhaul judiciary (28 June 2008)

A prominent Turkish legal expert said Saturday the Constitutional Court is concerned that the AKP government could overhaul the structure of judicial system and therefore wants to make a rapid decision on the closure case.

"The Constitutional Court acts rapidly. Otherwise (the government) will overhaul the judicial system. When they do this, it will be the end of the Republic of Turkey. A wider political front, including the CHP, should be formed for the early elections that would be hold after the AKP is closed. Then this political front would get 35-40 percent of the votes, unfortunately we cannot take this step," Vural Savas, the honorary top prosecutor of Turkey, told at a conference in southern province of Antalya on Saturday.

He added Turkey had been moved away from Kemalism with the "one party dictatorship" of the AKP government. He also blamed the Political Parties Law and the 10 percent threshold for the recent turmoil in the country.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

A few links for those that might be unfamiliar with a couple of critical incidents in recent Turkish history:

The Susurluk affair 1, 2
Ergenekon

The secular humanists: Grey Wolves, a Gladio sponsored organization, featuring the usual fusion of the criminal underworld and far-right sociopaths and a connection to the the Ergenekon affair (see also here). And drugs. And the Pope.   If it was a Hollywood scenario you'd say it was outlandish.

Apart from the vast improvement in reasonably defined democratic standards in Turkey, I should add that the defeat of the Turkish "deep state" is IMHO the sine qua non of achieving meaningfully peaceful relations between Greece and Turkey. This would allow my tax euros to go uncontested to more worthwhile projects, instead of lining the pockets of various international and local arms-dealers and corrupt officials, in huge amounts (see # 16, 25 and 27), obscene actually, when you realize that this is only direct military expenses.

I thus declare a personal financial interest in Turkey having a government, the true leaders of which do not have "making war" as their main job description and who do not profit directly or indirectly by the threat of war and tension with their neighbours (the situation on this side is greatly simplified by the fact that we managed to fasten the army to its barracks since 1974 - it's not easy but it's easier). And who really want to join Europe. Erdogan is the only visible hope to achieve this.

The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom - William Blake