This justification has turned out to be as controversial as the annulment itself. In the 20-page decision, the court stressed that the headscarf legislation had political and religious motivations and that the changes would increase social polarization. The court -- which had been expected to judge the headscarf case on the basis of procedure rather than on substance, as mandated under the Constitution -- has blocked Parliament from making any constitutional changes without its approval in the future, many commentators say.What Sabah's Emre Aköz finds most problematic about the Constitutional Court's headscarf ruling and its reasoned decision is the fact that it violated the authority of Parliament. That is, the court infringed on an authority that belongs to Parliament alone. According to Aköz, while doing this the court assumed an authority that is not given to it in the Constitution. In his view, the way the court acted in annulling the headscarf amendments harbors many risks for its future rulings in other cases because the court made its ruling in reference to the unchangeable articles of the Constitution. "The main concept that the court refers to in its ruling is secularism. This is just the beginning. If Parliament attempts to make amendments in the fields of politics and economy, the court may annul them, referring to the unchangeable articles of the Constitution such as 'democracy,' 'the social state' and 'the rule of law'." In short, the Constitutional Court has become a "veto court" following the headscarf ruling. "We have been complaining for a long time that there is a regime of military tutelage in Turkey. Now the Constitutional Court has been added to this regime. There is now also a judicial tutelage regime in Turkey above Parliament," Aköz contends.
Milliyet's Taha Akyol shares the same view as Aköz in that the Constitutional Court went beyond the scope of its authority with its decision. "This ruling is the decision of the esteemed members of the court based on their ideological leanings. But there is nothing to do. There is no superior court to appeal to about its decision. Since the court is not a political party, nobody can complain about it to the public, either," Akyol says about the desperate situation created by the ruling.
Radikal's Hasan Celal Güzel says with this ruling the Constitutional Court proved that it is no longer a judicial institution that makes objective and neutral judgments but an institution that makes arbitrary political decisions with ideological undertones. Under these circumstances, Güzel suggests that if we want to establish a democratic regime in Turkey where the nation's will is valid instead of a juristocracy or a despotic regime, it is urgent for us to change the Constitutional Court in many aspects.
