The HSYK move, which was widely interpreted as direct intervention into an ongoing case, hence casting a shadow over the judiciary’s impartiality and independence, has resulted in a broad assessment of Turkey’s troubled judicial system.Radikal’s Oral Çalışlar admits that there is no power in Turkey that can inspect the judiciary: “The judiciary elects its councils from among its members; it determines its own administrators itself. It can close down any party it wants. It can ban a politician from politics and jail him or her. The judiciary and its members do not have to account to anybody. I leave it to your consideration to decide whether this system is a democracy or the sovereignty of judges,” says Çalışlar. According to the Turkish judicial bureaucracy, he says, even if a political party is elected by garnering the support of a large part of society, it must give an accounting to the judiciary, not the public, and the judicial bureaucracy believes that it was given this authority by the judicial system and institutionalization created by military coups.
“In developed countries, judicial institutions are shaped by elected organs. If we make a comparison with Germany, we see that the justice ministers of each state have a say in the members of the country’s highest courts. Powers are determined in a country in line with the will of the elected, and Parliament being the center of the state administration is the basis of the democracy. In Turkey, however, the system is based on distrust of those elected. The institutions that guarantee the running of the ‘system of distrust’ are the judiciary and the military,” explains Çalışlar.
Yeni Şafak’s Fehmi Koru says anything can be said about a state where members of the judiciary are seen as “immune,” but it cannot be called a state of democracy and law. He says if everyone who is suspected of having committed offenses, including generals who were deemed untouchable until recently, testify to judges and appear before the court, prosecutors could also be called to testify by their colleagues, and they can be arrested by the courts. In Koru’s view, although the ongoing fight seems to be about the judiciary, it is actually a political battle between the government and some circles that are unhappy about sharing their power with the government.
Bugün’s Gülay Göktürk, who fears that the democratic system in Turkey will no longer put up with the interferences of the judicial organs such as the HSYK, Constitutional Court and the Council of State, suggests that the first solution that comes to mind is a judicial reform that will prevent the judiciary from acting arbitrarily. Nevertheless, she is very pessimistic about such a reform package being a solution on the grounds that even if the government realizes a judicial reform to overhaul the judiciary, it is certain that the Republican People’s Party (CHP) will challenge it at the Constitutional Court, which will eventually annul the package.
