For this reason, it will remain under discussion for a long time considering that the main tension in politics is between the state bureaucracy and society in Turkey. We might say the said decision reinforced the invisible domination and power of the "administrative/bureaucratic center" and took the AK Party hostage. This does not mean anything other than a guardianship regime. Because of the decision, politics received a strong blow. The political state of affairs is obvious: Statements which were supposed to be reviewed within the scope of "freedom of expression" and "inviolability and immunity of speech in Parliament" were cited as evidence of the anti-secularist discourse of the party. The former parliament speaker was found guilty because he made reference to a "democratic, civilian and religious president." The prime minister was found guilty because he asked whether the headscarf could be banned even if it is a political symbol and offered to present questions on religious matters, including the headscarf issue, to Islamic scholars. Let us ask:
1) The politicians will not be allowed to make such statements -- regardless of their accuracy or if they draw wide acceptance -- so what are they supposed to do? Wasn't there freedom of expression and wasn't this the highest value of the democratic world? Didn't the politicians enjoy immunity in connection with their statements and speeches in Parliament? Wasn't it impossible for the politicians to conduct politics without expressing their views?
2) If those who exercise their freedom of expression in a democratic country are punished because they made these statements, what would the political system that tried them be called? In just a word: totalitarianism! Despite the codified law on paper, the appearance of institutions and the assertions by the power elites and those who live in a world of imagination, Turkey's official political culture is totalitarian because of its spirit, content and inherent goals. And every day, the system moves further toward totalitarianism. Everybody should ask this: Will I accept this totalitarianism?
3) The common theme of "religious, symbolic value of the headscarf and Islamic scholars" is religion. This is undoubtedly Islam. For God's sake, is Islam forbidden in this country? How is it that every image, call or implication in regards to religion is declared an absolute harm, threat and danger so that those who make any reference to it receive punishment? How is it possible that a state is so opposed to the religion and belief of the vast majority of its nation?
