Turkey's judiciary dealt the government a nasty blow, upping the ante on headscarves, writes Gareth Jenkins Last Thursday, the Turkish Constitutional Court raised the stakes in the long-running confrontation between the government of the moderate Islamist Justice and Development Party (JDP) and the country's secular establishment when it annulled two constitutional amendments which had been designed to create the legal framework for lifting the ban which currently prevents female students who cover their heads from attending university. The ruling now makes it almost inevitable that the JDP will be outlawed later this year when the Constitutional Court issues its decision on an application for the party to be banned for allegedly serving as a focus for anti-secular activities. Opinion polls suggest that around two-thirds of Turkish women cover their heads. But, under Turkey's often draconian interpretation of secularism, they are forbidden from either studying at university or working as civil servants. On 9 February, the JDP amended the country's constitution to guarantee all Turks equal access to all public services and make it illegal to prevent anyone from receiving an education except for a reason openly stated in law. The opposition Republican People's Party (RPP) immediately applied to the Constitutional Court for the annulment of the amendments on the grounds that they violated the principle of secularism, which is enshrined in the Turkish constitution as one of the unchangeable characteristics of the republic. Even before Thursday's ruling, there had been considerable debate about whether or not the RPP's protests were justified. Not only did neither of the constitutional amendments explicitly refer to the headscarf, but a Constitutional Court ruling of March 1989 had described allowing covered women to study at university as unconstitutional, and thus presumably also illegal. Article 148 of the Turkish constitution appeared to suggest that the Constitutional Court was only empowered to rule on the "form" of constitution amendments, not their content. As a result, many had expected the Constitutional Court to announce either that the amendments fell outside its jurisdiction or that the legal status of the headscarf had already been determined by the ruling of March 1989. But the Constitutional Court appears to have issued its ruling based on the JDP's perceived intent rather than the amendments themselves. In a brief statement accompanying the announcement of the verdict, Constitutional Court President Hasim Kilic said that the court decided that the amendments violated the principle of secularism in the Turkish constitution. A detailed statement explaining the reasoning behind the ruling is due to be published in the Turkish Official Gazette in the weeks ahead. It is likely to make interesting reading; not least because even hardline secularists who support the headscarf ban are curious to learn how the court managed to find a threat to secularism in the wording of the proposed constitutional amendments. The individual votes of the 11-member court have not yet been made public, although the Turkish media quoted unnamed sources as reporting that nine voted in favour of annulment and only two for the rejection of the RPP's application. Kilic has long been regarded as a moderate on the headscarf issue and was most likely one of the two judges who voted to reject the application. In announcing the decision, Kilic voiced the fears of many Turks that tensions over the headscarf could trigger social unrest. "Whatever happens, let us not lose our togetherness," he implored. But some of JDP members had difficulty controlling their anger. Husrev Kutlu, a JDP member of parliament for the eastern province of Adiyaman lambasted what he described as the "judicial oligarchy". "It is a decision without any basis in law," complained Kutlu. "From now on, all decisions of the Constitutional Court should be submitted to a referendum." Abdul-Rahman Kurt, a JDP deputy from Diyarbakir, was more blunt. "This is a judicial coup," he said. In a speech to his parliamentary party, Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan fiercely criticised what he described as a "politically-motivated decision". But he refused to be drawn out on the government's possible response. "We shall wait until the explanation has been published in the Official Gazette," he said. Privately, members of the JDP admit that, since last Thursday's decision, they have now begun to make preparations for the creation of a new party ready for what appears to be the JDP's inevitable closure later this year. But, amidst the anger and frustration, most remain confident. Several recall how the Constitutional Court intervened in the presidential elections in parliament in spring 2007 to prevent the JDP from appointing then Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul, not least because his wife wears a headscarf and the prospect of a covered first lady was in itself regarded by hardliners as a violation of secularism. The court's intervention was frequently described at the time as a "judicial coup" and forced the JDP to call an early election in July 2007. But not only was the party returned to power with an even larger share of the vote but, in August 2007, Gul was finally appointed to the presidency. "We have just lost a battle," said one AKP supporter who asked not to be named. "And it looks as if we shall lose the next one as well and the party will be closed down. But, in the end, we'll win the war. How can anyone justify preventing someone from having an education?"
