Mayday on May Day

The first of May in Turkey as elsewhere is meant to celebrate workers’ rights and the dignity of labour.  Instead it turned into a near ritual confrontation between police and demonstrators over the right to mark the occasion with a rally in Istanbul’s Taksim Square. Among those taken into custody was Deniz Zerin, the night editor of our sister organisation T24. His offence was to be caught in the back streets, fleeing tear gas while trying to wend his way to work. Şafak Pavey is an MP who under Turkish law enjoys legal immunity. She also happens to have a prosthetic arm and a leg. This did not stop police from dragging her to the ground in an attempt to arrest her as well.
 
Far from Taksim Square, in Washington D.C., another event occurred which should cause all those who care about press freedom in Turkey to sit up and take note. The first of May is the occasion when the democratic watchdog Freedom House delivers its annual assessment on the state of the world’s media, awarding marks to countries according to the liberty its journalists enjoy to report what they believe to be the truth.
 
For years, Turkey has struggled to emerge from the ignominy of being dumped into Freedom House’s category of being “partly free”. When this current government was elected in 2002, the country’s “score” was 58; by the 2007 general election it had improved (i.e. went down) to 49.  To be considered “free” it would have to score 30 or below. However, instead of getting better, things  began to get worse. And last year there was a sudden deterioration.
 
As of 1 May 2014, according to Freedom House, the press in Turkey is no longer “partly free.” Its score now stands at a pitiful 62 – comparable to Libya or Ukraine. This means it is “not free” at all, the only European country to wear that  badge of shame. Turkey was not the only country to lose points. Britain suffered a loss of rank (from 21 to 23) over the attempt to hush up reporting on national security issues.
 
Freedom House is a respected organisation and weighs its judgement carefully. Its  grave pronouncement on Trkey umust be taken seriously. Of course, its methodology can be criticised, as can the whole notion of grading  nations,  like cattle at a show.  But  it would be hard to argue with the basic proposition that the media in Turkey operates not with one, but two hands tied behind its back.
 
A few years ago one might have argued that the greatest opponent of press freedom in Turkey was the mainstream press itself — which bargained away its outspokenness for financial advantage. Media proprietors in Turkey are notorious for seeking to leverage their influence in non-media spheres. Today, even that lickspittle media is whimpering its protest  at the government’s zero tolerance for those who raise their voice.
 
This is  government which manhandles dissent, which blocks the path of an elected parliamentarian or a night editor trying to reach his desk, and which makes its case with tear gas and water cannon rather than argument and reason. It is a government with either has something to hide or one which sets out to provoke division. In either case, shouting the press down is like losing your temper to dampen the voice of conscience.