The age of consensus; a pipe dream.

Grey skies linger over a pro-Kurdish demonstration in Istanbul. Police used pepper gas and water cannons against the peaceful protestors.

Just two weeks after parliamentary elections were held, Turkey finds itself more divided than ever. Will this sentiment play into the hands of the ruling conservatives who are looking more decisively ready to go it alone on ushering in a new constitution? And what does this say about the state of democracy in this burned out EU candidate member state?

The prime minister has ignored the calls of the opposition to find a way out of the current stalemate brought about because independently elected MPs were not freed from prison to take their oath in parliament on Tuesday.

"Whether the opposition comes to parliament or not, there is no legal obstacle preventing parliament from functioning. They will see how parliamentary commissions work," Erdogan is quoted as saying in Today's Zaman newspaper.

The prime minister it seems has no intention in solving the current stand off with the main opposition party and the pro-Kurdish bloc, both of whom boycotted the oath taking ceremony in protest that their deputies are still behind bars.

Has the opposition miscalculated their political power again? Supporters of the CHP were almost ecstatic when the party leader announced, he and his party, would not take the oath on Tuesday. The decision was hailed as a courageous principaled step. However, on reflection these same supporters now question whether it was a bold move or just plain stupidity.

"They didn't take the oath, but they were in parliament on that day. So there was enough quorum. If they really wanted to protest what were they doing in the parliament? That would have been a much bolder protest that would have held more meaning," one supporter told me.

While confusion reigns over whether the independently elected MPs should have been released from prison in time to take the oath, as was, Sebahat Tuncel in the 2007 elections - she was elected from prison. The so-called consensus that Prime Minister Erdogan offered on election night seems further away than ever.

The question over whether convicted MPs such as Hatip Dicle should have been released apparently pertains to their sentence time. Dicle recieved a one-year eight-months sentence for making propaganda for a terrorist organisation. The labyrinth of Turkish law, which no one seems able to make any sense of, as is usually the case in Turkey, I believe, states that candidates serving more than a one-year prison sentence do not qualify to run in the elections. So why did Dicle apply for candidacy? And why did the Supreme Election Board permit him to run?

In contrast, Sebahat Tuncel, an independent MP, who was convicted of belonging to a terrorist group - a much more serious crime in the judicial sense - was able to seek re-election, after her 18-month sentence was reduced to six months by an Istanbul court, two months ahead of the elections.

Confused? The Turkish judicial system is clearly disfunctional. But this disfunctionality it seems could play further into the hands of the ruling conservatives, who are looking more and more likely to go it alone on rewriting the consitution.

"They may be looking to strike while the iron is hot," a Turkish journalist told me.

Although AKP lost seats in the June parliamentary election, the prime minister's party recieved 50 percent of the popular vote. In the eyes of the ruling party, this may be all the validation they need to hold a public referendum on Turkey's long awaited constitution. It clearly signals a YES vote at the ballot boxes.

But could they? And would they go it alone? The AKP only need to rally an extra four MPs in the legislature to vote on taking the new consitution to a public referendum. Hatip Dicle's seat has already been given to an AKP candidate, so now they need three. The MHP took their oath on Tuesday and have promised to back AKP's consitution. And, the markets have shown no reaction to the current political stand off in Ankara, which pretty much paves the way for AKP to confidentally get on with the job at hand.

A draft constitution has been knocking around for a few years, so why not just get on with it? Do AKP supporters care whether there is consensus?

What does this mean for the future of Turkey? The prime minister wants to bring in a presidential system that would seal his ultimate grip on power. Are we watching an autocratic regime in the making, as others in the region fall? Does Europe understand what's at stake here? Do Turks understand what this means in the long-term? Are fears that the secular state will be undermined legitimate in this context? Is the prime minister sincere in his claims of wanting to solve the Kurdish issue?

"I will seek consensus with all parties. The nation has spoken and called for a negotiated constitution. I am the negotiator of the new consitution," the prime minister said on election night in his victory speech. We the foreign press reported it, hoping that finally Turkish democracy would be propelled forward and that real negotiations would start.

"Both the main opposition CHP and AKP don't want to take responsibility for making amendments to the law now that would free these MPs. Because these changes may, later down the road, pave the way for the likes of Abdullah Ocalan (the imprisoned leader of the PKK) to stand in parliamentary elections, and no one wants to take responsible for that," a friend commented.

So where do we go from here? The parliament will elect a speaker of the house on Monday. How will the CHP act? The parliament will then go to summer recess, probably at the end of this month. This will provide Prime Minister Erdogan a couple months to plot his next move. Will he seek consensus and deliver an inclusive consitution? Or will he as many opposition supporters now fear, go it alone?