The opposition, particularly the CHP, currently has the power to put pressure on the government to adopt a transparent approach, as long as it uses its power in line with social expectations. Pressure should be put on the government to bring the law-making processes, which are also closely related to transparency, closer to at least minimum democratic standards. We don't know, maybe these issues are being discussed, but we need to hear from the leader of the opposition that they are being discussed in order to put the responsibility for our ignorance on the government. It is not right for some journalists to be assigned the role of spokesperson in such a crony relationship.
There should be official statements from the party spokesperson or leader, from senior party officials. At least this is the public expectation and this is the requirement of transparency. The people of this country are tired of backstage news and leaking tactics. The ease of having journalists say and print things and then denying or pretending to deny when there is a reaction is a tactic of the AKP that we have been fed up with for 22 years. The CHP should use the power of pressure given by the voters to force the government to put an end to this. In my opinion, this is the social expectation.
Dubbed a judicial reform, the deformation packages have turned the legal system upside down for years. Now we are trying to predict when the 9th package will arrive, what will be in it, in which areas human rights will be usurped and the legal order will be destroyed. The government should abandon this package. All opposition parties should force the government to initiate a legal process with pluralistic participation, meetings open to negotiation, including the views of relevant groups on problem identification and solution methods. Because they do not have the right to keep themselves and the whole society like lambs waiting for their turn to be slaughtered in a slaughterhouse.
About the four reasons for abandoning the package, which are nothing more than conclusions based on scraps of information accumulated through leaks. The fact that it is a leak does not mean that it is not true, but there is no doubt that it is incomplete. When it is presented to parliament and Pandora's box is opened, each social segment will focus on its share of violations and deformations, as we have been experiencing so far.
In this way, the government will again take advantage of the weakness of the divided reactions. And yet, since the picture continues as it is, from where I stand, I will list the four reasons offered by the women's movement, since the conditions have not changed yet.
The Women for Equality Platform (EŞİK) announced on June 6 that this package should be abandoned in terms of women's rights. According to the news leaked to the press, Law No. 6284 to Protect Family and Prevent Violence Against Women, women's surnames, new amnesty for perpetrators of violence, and the new concept of 'agents of influence', known as a new type of espionage, are listed as the reasons why the package should be abandoned.
Law No. 6284 is a protection law that focuses on women and children against gender-based violence, i.e. patriarchal male violence. And, the only sanction provision of this law that would deter perpetrators, the 'compulsory imprisonment' article, is reportedly to be abolished. If coercive imprisonment, which is a sanction for perpetrators who do not comply with protective and preventive cautionary decisions and do not fulfill their obligations, is abolished or replaced with a regulation such as opening the way to appeal, 6284 will be largely dysfunctional.
According to news reports, the issue of women's surnames will be completely reverted to the old order, contrary to the Constitutional Court's annulment. It has been one of the most important issues in women's struggle for equality for many years. It was a very recent achievement, about 20 years old, and there is an attempt to reverse it and usurp women's right to a surname. It was one of the rare regulations that showed that women were recognized as legal subjects and autonomous individuals, and the Constitutional Court had annulled it on the grounds that even in its current form it violated the principle of equality.
It was possible for women to use their own surname, provided that it preceded the surname of the man they married. However, now it seems that the planned regulation will bring an arrangement that means that women will only use the surname of the man they are married to, which means a considerable regression. This is not acceptable. If marriage does not require a change of surname for men, it does not require a change of surname for women either. There is much more to say, but I will stop here for now.
Granting amnesty for perpetrators of violence is a chronic disease of the AKP government. In all judicial packages up to the 9th, they have not stopped rewarding the perpetrators of all kinds of violence against women and children with impunity under names such as execution discount, execution regulation, concrete evidence criteria for child sexual abuse, the Covid amnesty, facilitating the right to transition to open prison, young marriage, etc. They are not tired of releasing perpetrators of violence to the streets and giving them the chance to “tie up loose ends.”
There is also the issue of “agents of influence.” They made their own journalists wear this name. It was reported to the public under this name, and then when the reactions arose, they took the opportunity to deny it, saying “No, such an arrangement was never part of our preparations.” Yet this is exactly what the extension of the espionage article means.
The issue of this unnamed agent of influence is a very broad topic. However, I would like to conclude this article with a few sentences based on a recent example and my own perspective. Let us remember the Diamond Tema incident. It is an issue related to the traditionalist, dogmatic, New Salafist form of religiosity that has become the mainstream interpretation of religion in the country with the support of the government and through the Diyanet and even National Education. Tema did not even criticize but only raised questions about the age of Aisha and the Prophet's marriage to a child.
The Minister of Justice himself announced the investigation into Tema. Even before the law on agents of influence was passed, the judiciary was instructed on social media and then at the ministerial level, and the Minister of Justice shared the information about the investigation. Diamond Tema's words were very inadequate and opened up opportunities to defend the dogmatic interpretations of religion supported by the government, but they were within the boundaries of freedom of thought and expression.
However, many religious people in this country, including myself, are fundamentally critical of dogmatic interpretations and the use of the term sharia to mean religion, to mean Islam. Therefore, in my opinion, the agent of influence regulation will be used mostly for those who have different interpretations of religion than the traditionalists. From criticizing the Diyanet to objecting to the religiousization of the curriculum, I think religious interpretations, criticism, and questioning will create an opportunity for them to accuse us of being agents of influence.
Of course, outside the field of religion and coming after the censorship law, the possibility of this law will serve to reinforce the loyalty of the press, academia, the women's movement in civil society, rights defenders, and public employees in a much stricter way.
There are other reasons to abandon this package of deformations, but even this much should be enough for the entire opposition to unite to put pressure on the government. First, this proposal should be forced to be withdrawn before it reaches parliament, and then it should be offered to be rewritten together. If this fails, the tactical stage of “you wrote it yourself, vote for it yourself” should be taken. Until now, I have been one of those who have faulted the opposition for not taking part in the voting on important laws. But this is politics, changing circumstances require changing tactics.