The fact that the Council of State even threatened to shut down the parties in question, namely the ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party) and Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), if they go ahead with their plans to abolish the ban drew criticism since the judicial institutions have no right to intimidate the political authorities and control their actions in this way in a state where there is separation of powers. Yeni Şafak columnist Yasin Aktay describes the approaches of these judicial institutions as being good examples of anachronism. “Anachronism is the name of a mentality and perceptions that fail to correctly read the needs of society and the course of world events,” he clarifies. According to Aktay a brand new period that has various cultural, economic and social dynamics started in Turkey following the July 22 elections. Hence, he thinks that it is of crucial importance to read the dynamics of this new period correctly and stop making a fuss over the supposed existence of confrontation between secularists and religious people in the country. In his view, the anti-headscarf statements of the top courts bring to mind the Feb. 28 process -- the so-called post-modern coup in 1997. “These courts have attempted to protect the judges’ sovereignty in a nostalgic reflex with their statements. An understanding that sees its own secularism interpretations as taboo was possible during the Feb. 28 process. But not today,” he says. Aktay acknowledges that the judiciary being under the influence of an outdated approach is a bitter reality of the country; yet, he notes that this is also one of the important reminders of the fact that Turkey’s progress does not come easily.
Milliyet’s Taha Akyol dwells on what he says is a sine qua non for the judiciary, its neutrality. He remarks that judicial bodies cannot make choices on political philosophies; thus, he states that the judicial institutions in question should avoid making statements like “Abolition of the headscarf ban will create tension in society.” He explains that first and foremost this expression is not judicial but sociological. Secondly, it does not rely on any sociological data. Thirdly, the authority and responsibility for the abolition of the headscarf is in the hands of the legislative and executive bodies. Fourth, the judicial body does not have any authority to put pressure on the legislative body. “We need to get past such things. We should have the same liberties in economy, politics, belief and culture as modern and liberal democracies,” remarks Akyol.
Star’s Mustafa Karaalioğlu says the courts tell the parties that they cannot enact any laws or change the Constitution to allow covered girls to have access to universities with veiled messages, saying, “You cannot play on our fears.” According to him, although this problem could be solved in a simpler way, it is the fault of those resisting the move that parties are now trying to solve this issue at the constitutional level.
