Dear Friends:
I don’t agree with the tenor of your article, which also does not capture my views on the subject of the June 5 decisions of the Turkish Constitutional Court. As to my own views:

1. The decisions were bad technically because the amendments to articles 10 and 42 did not in themselves threaten secularism, either in the wide or even in the Turkish limited sense.
2. They were entirely within the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court however, due to the unchangeable nature of articles 1,2 and 3 according to article 4. article 148 that allows only procedural review of amendments here would not allow the change of what is unchangeable even by a 100% of the vote… Thus the procedure could not be said to have been adequate, if the Court were right that the amendments touched article 2 (it was not right, but that is an interpretive and not a jurisdictional matter).
3. The decisions could be interpreted as Göle does, historically, as preparatory to the destruction of the AKP in the party closing case, or logically, as I do, as making party closing irrelevant and obsolete. (Note that Gen. Prosecutor Yalcinkaya already felt compelled to respond to this argument, in his statement to the Court on June 2!) I don’t say that the Court is thereby defending the right notion of secularism (as you have me say), indeed it has not articulated any clear notion as it should have. I only say that it is better for the Court to turn into the guardian of the constitution (and a consensus enforcing factor) as it just arguably was even in a technically bad decision, than to remain the guardian of the authoritarian elements of a dualistic regime.
4. We will see what will triumph, logic or history. The arrests of the accused Ergenekon members, and the Erdogan conversation with Gen. Basbug makes me think that I may be right, rather than Göle. I think she hopes that I am right as well.
As to the larger issue:
5. The AKP is in part responsible for the constitutional crisis for abandoning the consensual path of politics, and especially constitution making. Outsiders should not be too quick to uncritically take its side. We should hope it will survive the challenge along with its leaders. We should also hope and recommend that it return to the path of consensus and legitimacy, from that of a narrow, majoritarian legality as soon as possible. The TUSIAD association’s constitutional proposal offers one important avenue for how this could be done, if parliamentary negotiations have become as impossible as the AKP leaders claim.

I am happy that you are following this case. Its right outcome is all important for all of us.

Sincerely
Andrew Arato