Financial Times oversteps the mark to slam Turkey
Parliament is discussing a domestic security reform bill that is proposed to provide effective public safety in the country. There is nothing more natural than a country, which faces a serious terror risk with wars just across its borders, takes such measures. Why should it be abnormal that the government take measures against the threat of terror organizations in order to protect voters' will in the upcoming elections as a country that has only recently come out of an intense domestic conflict that resulted in the death of 50,000 people in 30 years? Despite all these conditions experienced in Turkey, the domestic security reform package that has been proposed by the ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party) includes soft measures that are even incomparable with those of EU countries.
However, European media outlets are publishing manipulative reports and articles suggesting that this domestic security reform package would eliminate democracy in Turkey. Recently, the Financial Times of the U.K. published an article putting forth similar claims. The article, which is titled "Turkey's democracy on the path to a police state," is full of baseless and impertinent allegations. Regarding President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, who has taken the most fundamental steps for democratization in Turkish history in 12 years, the article says: "If he is allowed to go much further, Turkey will no longer possess the basic standards required in a democracy." It also argues that the legal measures, which are compatible with EU norms and are proposed to ensure election safety, would eliminate all freedoms. We thought the Financial Times is a newspaper that takes its business seriously. So, at least it should have presented the minimum basis of its arguments while severely condemning elected politicians of a country.
First of all, is it the task of the Financial Times to give a source of legitimacy to a political leader who came to power through open elections that were followed by the whole world? What democratic understanding pushes the Financial Times to call the will of millions of voters for Erdoğan and the AK Party a danger? Let us suppose that this newspaper does not see any harm in acting on the information of civilian bureaucratic tutelary powers in Turkey and that it neither cares about universal journalistic ethics nor democratic norms. Obviously, the Financial Times ignores journalistic quality, and this is its own problem that has nothing to do with Turkey's domestic security reform package.
However, it seems that the Financial Times, which teaches democracy to other countries in a presumptuous manner, never looks at the public security standards of its own country, the U.K., and other EU countries. In the U.K, for instance, police have the authority to detain a suspect in minor crimes for 24 hours and the detention period can be extended up to 96 hours for indictable offenses such as manslaughter. Similarly, the detention period for terrorism-related offenses can be up to 28 days. However, Turkey has only half of these detention periods and a 28-day detention was applied only during military coups.
In the U.K. again, possession and use of Molotov cocktails are within the scope of the Explosive Substances Act of 1883. The law stipulates that using, agreeing to or intending to use these is considered a crime even if it does not detonate, whereas in Turkey, using a Molotov cocktail will be defined as a crime only with the new legislation. With a newly enacted law, the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act of 2015, in the U.K., British police are entitled to seize passports - nobody even thinks of such a police power in Turkey.
On top of that, the British police can take suspects into custody and search their houses or vehicles to gather evidence without prior authorization, whereas the relevant article of the domestic security reform package being discussed in Turkey is open to judicial review. In other Western countries, including the U.S., Germany and France, internal security laws are much more severe than Turkey's proposed laws. The whole world watched on televisions the martial law regime that lasted in France for days after the Charlie Hebdo attack. So, have you ever witnessed such crackdowns that restrict people's rights and freedoms in Turkey, which constantly faces attacks of this kind? Then, what is the reason for this hypocritical attitude of Western media outlets and why do they underestimate the will of Turkish people? Why minimum security standards of EU are considered excessive for Turkish people? I strongly recommend such media outlets to look carefully at circumstances of their own countries before criticizing Turkey in an overconfident manner.
However, European media outlets are publishing manipulative reports and articles suggesting that this domestic security reform package would eliminate democracy in Turkey. Recently, the Financial Times of the U.K. published an article putting forth similar claims. The article, which is titled "Turkey's democracy on the path to a police state," is full of baseless and impertinent allegations. Regarding President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, who has taken the most fundamental steps for democratization in Turkish history in 12 years, the article says: "If he is allowed to go much further, Turkey will no longer possess the basic standards required in a democracy." It also argues that the legal measures, which are compatible with EU norms and are proposed to ensure election safety, would eliminate all freedoms. We thought the Financial Times is a newspaper that takes its business seriously. So, at least it should have presented the minimum basis of its arguments while severely condemning elected politicians of a country.
First of all, is it the task of the Financial Times to give a source of legitimacy to a political leader who came to power through open elections that were followed by the whole world? What democratic understanding pushes the Financial Times to call the will of millions of voters for Erdoğan and the AK Party a danger? Let us suppose that this newspaper does not see any harm in acting on the information of civilian bureaucratic tutelary powers in Turkey and that it neither cares about universal journalistic ethics nor democratic norms. Obviously, the Financial Times ignores journalistic quality, and this is its own problem that has nothing to do with Turkey's domestic security reform package.
However, it seems that the Financial Times, which teaches democracy to other countries in a presumptuous manner, never looks at the public security standards of its own country, the U.K., and other EU countries. In the U.K, for instance, police have the authority to detain a suspect in minor crimes for 24 hours and the detention period can be extended up to 96 hours for indictable offenses such as manslaughter. Similarly, the detention period for terrorism-related offenses can be up to 28 days. However, Turkey has only half of these detention periods and a 28-day detention was applied only during military coups.
In the U.K. again, possession and use of Molotov cocktails are within the scope of the Explosive Substances Act of 1883. The law stipulates that using, agreeing to or intending to use these is considered a crime even if it does not detonate, whereas in Turkey, using a Molotov cocktail will be defined as a crime only with the new legislation. With a newly enacted law, the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act of 2015, in the U.K., British police are entitled to seize passports - nobody even thinks of such a police power in Turkey.
On top of that, the British police can take suspects into custody and search their houses or vehicles to gather evidence without prior authorization, whereas the relevant article of the domestic security reform package being discussed in Turkey is open to judicial review. In other Western countries, including the U.S., Germany and France, internal security laws are much more severe than Turkey's proposed laws. The whole world watched on televisions the martial law regime that lasted in France for days after the Charlie Hebdo attack. So, have you ever witnessed such crackdowns that restrict people's rights and freedoms in Turkey, which constantly faces attacks of this kind? Then, what is the reason for this hypocritical attitude of Western media outlets and why do they underestimate the will of Turkish people? Why minimum security standards of EU are considered excessive for Turkish people? I strongly recommend such media outlets to look carefully at circumstances of their own countries before criticizing Turkey in an overconfident manner.