In separate statements, both the Supreme Court of Appeals and the Council of State warned the government that abolishing the headscarf ban at universities, which was introduced by a 1989 ruling of the Constitutional Court, was against Turkey’s unitary and secular structure and that it would be a potential threat to societal peace. Frustrated by the courts’ statements, which he interpreted as an attempt to intimidate his government, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan challenged the courts, saying that no authority is superior to the will of Parliament. Now, it is a matter of curiosity over which side will be the winner of this fight, either the pro-status quo state bureaucracy or the nation’s will.Acknowledging the fact that secularism has been largely adopted by the citizens of Turkey, Radikal columnist Hasan Celal Güzel accuses some circles in the country, like the above-mentioned judicial institutions, of perpetuating their power by imposing secularism as a religion and an ideology. “This oligarchic minority that is against the nation’s will is putting pressure on the legislative, executive and judicial bodies of the state by imposing a secularist ideology,” he states. He discusses the reasons why some state bodies like these top courts immediately voiced their concerns and disapproval after Erdoğan said his government would relax the headscarf ban, explaining that these institutions have been abused by the main opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP), which has failed to come to power in more than 50 years, because the CHP does not want to lose its oligarchic sovereignty in the state apparatus. Looking at the reactions of the top courts, Güzel concludes that it would be more appropriate to talk about Turkey as a country where “juritocracy” reigns rather than democracy. “We always talk about supremacy of law in this country. Yet, this never means the supremacy of judges or jurists. It is a different thing to be respectful to the judiciary and to replace “national sovereignty” with the “sovereignty of judges” by heeding it more than the nation’s will and democracy,” he clarifies.
Zaman’s Mustafa Ünal also talks about the existence of a minority group -- the state bureaucracy -- in Turkey, which tries to impose their will on the majority, as is the case in the headscarf issue. He complains that although a majority of the public is in favor of the abolition of this anti-democratic ban as revealed by public surveys, a small group led by the CHP and state bureaucracy is making a fuss over it and is warning the government not to make such a move on the grounds that it will deal a blow to the secular regime. “Although they are the minority, they speak with a louder voice. They are trying to force a lack of solution [on the headscarf problem] on the majority,” he notes. As for the statements of the Council of State and the Supreme Court of Appeals, he finds that they have gone beyond merely expressing their opinions. “Their statements were really inappropriate in terms of style and content. It is unbelievable that the chief prosecutor of the Supreme Court of Appeals can threaten to shut down the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) and Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) for being in favor of a lift of the headscarf ban,” states Ünal.
Bugün columnist Ömer Lütfi Mete accuses the judicial institutions in question of engaging in fortune telling in their opposition to the abolishment of the headscarf ban. In her statement, President of the Council of State Sumru Çörtoğlu also claimed that allowing headscarves at universities would be followed by demands for allowing it in other state institutions. Mete thinks that Çörtoğlu admitted that the ban at universities is illogical with her statement because there is no such ban at universities either in Europe or the US. Thus, he thinks that she made incorrect predictions about the future in regards to what will happen once the headscarf is allowed at universities.
