The Gezi effect

But the timid steps forward, which clearly appear to have an electoral dimension, are dwarfed by the vast catalogue of human rights violations described by Amnesty International in the report it has just published on the Gezi protests and their aftermath. Denial of the right to peaceful assembly, prosecutions under anti-terrorism legislation, sexual assaults in custody, the "extreme level and sustained nature of abusive use of force by law enforcement officials," improper use of pepper gas, rubber bullets and water cannons, the targeting of journalists and doctors, the broad impunity afforded to the police -- the list is long and the detailed report makes grim reading.

While the reform package focuses on improving legislation and regulations in a very limited way in various areas, the Amnesty report is a reminder that laws are not a sufficient safeguard as long as democratic reforms are not accompanied by a fundamental shift in mentality that allows them to be implemented fully. During the Gezi protests, Turkey violated many of the basic principles of human rights enshrined in treaties that the country is party to. Article 90 of the Constitution provides for "the supremacy of international law standards above domestic law on the subject of rights and freedom."

The unwillingness of the Turkish authorities to abide by their existing commitments, their use of force and anti-terror legislation whenever dissenting views are expressed and the continued pressure on the media inevitably undermine the credibility of the latest reforms. The democratization package may be Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's attempt to reduce tension in society, but in light of the egregious abuses of the past few months, a more fundamental shift in mentality will be needed to put Turkey back on a more democratic track.

Amnesty lists that Turkey violated regulations as it cracked down on the demonstrations. Turkey had in fact already been condemned by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) on previous occasions for its use of force against peaceful protests. As the report points out, even the excesses of a few protesters or agents provocateurs, who may have used violence, are not considered sufficient cause for the kind of response unleashed against the demonstrations.

President Abdullah Gül's speech at the opening of Parliament on Oct. 1 was in sharp contrast with the prime minister's narrow focused approach to reform. As head of state, of course, Gül can afford to take the broader view and lay out basic principles. But the president has always been more willing to compromise than the fiery Erdoğan and he appears to be more in touch with Turkey's social realities. Many have pointed out that Gül's departure from the government and his accession to the presidency in 2007 marked a turning point for the Justice and Development Party (AKP), which has increasingly become a one-man show.

From the start of the Gezi protests, President Gül adopted a more conciliatory attitude, stating that the protesters' "message had been received."  In his recent speech, which emphasized the potential harm of polarization, the president described the Gezi Park demonstrations and young people's concerns for nature and the urban environment as a "new manifestation of our democratic maturity," while stressing that a free media "adds strength to our democracy."

The timing of the president's words may rekindle expectations that he may not be willing to step out of the way gracefully at the end of his mandate next year to allow Prime Minister Erdoğan to fulfill his presidential ambitions. Whether this is the case or Mr. Gül is instead seeking a return to active politics within the AKP, he made a point that the government should listen to: "Not a single country in the world today has regressed or stood in harm's way by allowing the broadest exercise of democratic rights and freedoms."