Secularism has been one of the "fundamental and unchanging principles" guiding the Turkish Republic since its founding in 1923. It also has been the principle that has led to considerable domestic political tension. Over the years, political parties have emerged that appeared to challenge that principle and to seek to restore the centrality of religion to the state. Each time, the party has eventually been banned from the political stage. The Justice and Development Party (AKP) formed in 2001, has Islamist roots, but claims a conservative democratic place in the political spectrum. The AKP won the 2002national election by a wide margin and the 2007 election by a wider one, but its victories have not ended the secular-religious tensions in the country. Today, the Turkish domestic political scene is in turmoil, with two coincidental, perhaps related, dramas unfolding simultaneously. The public prosecutor initiated a lawsuit to have the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) banned for being a "focal point of anti-secular activities." Prior to this action and after it, in stages, the authorities arrested prominent secularists/ultranationalists ( ulusalcilar ) on suspicion of plotting and instigating actions to create chaos in the country and provoke the military to overthrow the government. Both dramas highlight a severely polarized political climate and a continuing crisis over power and identity in Turkey. The AKP and the secularists each have champions and opponents who disseminate conflicting narratives and interpretations of events. In some instances, the schism is blurred, as some secularists argue for AKP's survival in the name of democracy, and some AKP members and followers question their leaders' actions. Nonetheless, the national rift is real and as yet unhealed. The United States is concerned for stability in Turkey because it is a strategic partner, NATO ally, and candidate for membership in the European Union (EU). The Bush Administration may be concerned about the survival of Turkey's democracy because Turkey is one of the few predominantly Muslim democratic countries in the world and Administration officials refer to it as an inspiration for other Muslims even as they appear to have lessened emphasis on democratization elsewhere. During the recent governmental crisis in Ankara, the Administration adopted what appeared to some to be a stance of studied neutrality, with U.S. officials calling on Turks to find a solution based on democracy and rule of law. The political crisis first appeared in spring 2007, when the Justice and Development Party (AKP)-controlled parliament sought to elect then Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul as President of the Turkish Republic. Gul has roots in Turkey's Islamist movement and his wife wears a head scarf, which secularists consider a symbol of both Islamism and backwardness. Hence, to secularists, the country's identity was tied to the selection of a president. Moreover, they argued that, because the AKP already controlled the prime ministry and parliament (the Turkish Grand National Assembly), the balance of political power in the government would tilt in favor of Islamists if the party also assumed the presidency. A Turkish president is mainly a symbolic head of state, but he has significant powers of appointment as well as a bully pulpit. The crisis was temporarily resolved via early national elections on July 22, 2007, which the AKP won with a decisive 46.6% (usually rounded up as 47%) of the vote. On August 28, the new legislature elected Gul president. Secularist opponents continued to scrutinize the AKP government's performance for Islamist tendencies and a reprise of the crisis may have been expected. In December 2007, President Gul named an AKP-allied professor to head the Higher Education Board (YOK), disturbing some secularists. They were even more provoked when, on January 14, 2008, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan declared that the ban on wearing the head scarf in all public institutions was "a serious problem in terms of freedom." The ban has been in effect for several decades. On February 9, following Erdogan's lead, a 411-vote majority in the 550-seat parliament passed two constitutional amendments to lift the ban on wearing head scarves on university campuses; President Gul ratified them on February 22. The Prime Minister may have miscalculated in focusing on liberalization with the head scarf to the apparent exclusion of other human rights that are restricted. He thereby derailed an AKP-initiated, albeit somewhat stalled, process to draft a new constitution to replace the current one, which had been largely drafted under military guidance in the aftermath of a 1980 military coup. The AKP's stated goal had been to make the document more democratic and civilian. Erdogan may have been able to reform the constitution if he had tried harder to build a national consensus for the change, instead of shifting his attention so single-mindedly to the head scarf issue. A more sweeping revision of the constitution might have included the head scarf issue amid changes that are required for Turkey to meet the criteria for European Union (EU) membership, and perhaps might not have generated as much blowback. Ultimately, lifting the head scarf ban alone simply provided ammunition for the AKP's enemies. On February 27, the opposition Republican People's Party (CHP) and Democratic Left Party (DSP) filed suit in the Constitutional Court to overturn the new amendments. Then, on March 14, the Chief Public Prosecutor of the Court of Appeals requested the Constitutional Court to ban the AKP and 71 of its leading members, including Erdogan, Gul, more than 40 Members of Parliament, and 11 mayors, from politics for becoming a "focal point of anti-secular activities." Among other charges, the request cited parliament's lifting of the head scarf ban in universities. The AKP holds a 340-seat majority in the 550-seat parliament and, therefore, the prosecutor deemed it responsible for the action. He did not seek to indict the opposition Nationalist Action Party (MHP) or smaller parties which had joined the AKP to provide the super-majority required to amend the constitution in order to lift the ban. The AKP defense claimed that lifting the ban was aimed at expanding freedoms in the country and rejected all of the prosecutor's allegations. Analysts considered the outlook for the AKP's survival bleak as 8 out of the 11 judges on the Constitutional Court had been appointed by former President Ahmet Necdet Sezer, a staunch secularist. Seven had accepted the prosecutor's case, permitting it to go forward, and the Court ruled in a 9-2 vote on June 5 that parliament's action lifting the ban on head scarves in universities was unconstitutional. A 7-member Court majority was required to close the party, and the June 5 decision was widely viewed as a harbinger of the decision on the fate of the AKP. Moreover, a ban on a party would not have been unprecedented. Some 24 parties have been banned since the founding of the republic, and 4 parties accused of "anti-secular activities" or "Islamism" have been banned since 1980. If the Court banned the AKP and its leaders, then observers feared Turkey might have entered a period of political instability or, at least, uncertainty. Yet, each time an allegedly Islamist party had been banned in the past, it reconstituted itself and returned stronger. However, some analysts suggested that the AKP may have peaked with 47% of the vote in 2007 and would not return with a larger share. Others suggested that Prime Minister Erdogan may have alienated some centrists he had attracted in the 2007 election by not fulfilling his 2007 victory speech promise to govern for all Turks, bringing an "Islamist" agenda to the fore with the head scarf issue, apparently dropping plans to revise the constitution, neglecting the EU membership process, and failing to meet international standards in the Ergenekon police investigation (see below). Nonetheless, the successor "AKP" might have succeeded in portraying itself as victim of a "judicial coup," garnering a considerable sympathy vote, and winning a majority in parliament. Furthermore, the AKP continues to benefit from the ineffectiveness and lack of vision of the two main opposition parties, CHP and MHP. Neither has a party organization nor a level of grass roots support that can compete with the AKP. Under Deniz Baykal's leadership, the CHP, the party of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, founder of the Turkish Republic, has opposed government proposals without offering alternatives and may have lost its social democratic moorings. According to some experts, the party appears bereft of ideas of service and recent elections have shown that its constituents are a diminishing group of academics and elite nationalists who reside mainly in cities along the Aegean coast. For his part, MHP leader Devlet Bahceli supported lifting the head scarf ban and opposed banning the AKP, but maintained that AKP's leaders, such as Prime Minister Erdogan, should be held responsible for illicit actions and subject to being banned from holding political office. Thus, Baykal transparently saw a route to greater personal political success via banning the most popular and charismatic politician in the country. On July 30, six judges on the Constitutional Court voted to ban the party, one short of the required super-majority, providing the AKP with a narrow escape. Four others agreed that the party had become a focal point for anti-secular activities, but not serious ones. Thus, ten judges found the party guilty. Yet, because the required seven judges did not agree to the ban, the Court ruled that a penalty requiring the party to forfeit one-half of its financial assistance from the state would suffice. This penalty is not a hardship for the AKP, whose private donors can readily compensate for the loss. No AKP officials were banned. Constitutional Court President Hasim Kilic voted to exonerate the AKP and called for constitutional amendments to eliminate party closure cases.