Since the beginning of the investigation, I have been defending here that the Ergenekon Case, with its unconvincing and illegitimate evidences, disrespected witnesses and comical suspects, was nothing but a spectacle, which was created by the Islamist AKP government to form its own deep state and -when it's needed- to manipulate the unfavorable political calendar.
As far as I can analyze, the Ergenekon case has got nothing to do with civil democratization, as can be seen from the fact that the government leaders are getting along quite well with the successful coup leaders of the past, while illegally oppressing the political opposition by suspiciously condemning them to be a part of a mysterious junta.
The investigation, which is already tainted by prosecutors who approve illegal wiretapping and other violations of basic human rights, represents the recently-created Islamist domination of the police force, universities and the media, orchestrating well-planned psychological attacks against the last strongholds of the secular state: The army and the judiciary. We'll all see what will happen in Turkey after Islamists completely seize these two institutions, too.
But why do I make this summary now?
I see that the international media has recently changed its tone while talking about the case. While I have been criticizing this case, condemning it as a missed opportunity for Turkey to judge its successful coup leaders as they're still alive, the international media was praising the AKP government to democratize the country. However, we have started to see a critical coverage only recently. Maybe it is also a good time for some foreign columnists to apologize for accusing anyone in Turkey who was critical of the Ergenekon to be secular hardliners, anti-democratic establishment, etc.
New York Times was always cautious about the procedure, which I appreciated; but they also marginalize their tone now, started to criticize the government more harshly because of the case. Their latest article about the subject was surprisingly definitive:
"Legal experts contend that the elaborate charges and sometimes wild allegations in the case have the broad reach of an Inquisition. Zealous prosecutors, they say, have detained dozens of suspects without charge while conversations from tapped mobile telephones have surfaced mysteriously in pro-government newspapers, threatening to damage the credibility of the Turkish judicial system. (...) Gareth Jenkins, a Turkey specialist, noted the pervasive fear among Western analysts of Turkey that Ergenekon 'represents a major step, not — as its proponents maintain — towards the consolidation of pluralistic democracy in Turkey, but towards an authoritarian one-party state.'”
What about other Western sources which were supporting AKP passionately? Why are they also more critical about the Ergenekon now? Because they started to see that AKP has got the potential to be anti-Western one day?
As a Western-oriented, but disappointed and alienated Turk, I don't really care about them now.
Once again, you get what you deserve and you reap what you sow.
