A brand new expression has been dominating the agenda since the ceremony celebrating the start of the new judicial year, held at the Supreme Court of Appeals' conference hall. The expression was included in the text of the speech of Supreme Court of Appeals President Hasan Gerçeker, but he did not read parts of his speech including a section where the expression was included “due to time limitations,” Gerçeker said. “A partisan judiciary should not be created,” Gerçeker was planning to say, which drew the ire of many because everyone saw the text of the speech where Gerçeker implied that the judiciary functions in favor of the government. Analysts agree with Gerçeker that the Turkish judiciary's impartiality is debatable; yet, they say recent developments revealing jurists' links with anti-democratic attempts have shown that it functions in favor of anti-democratic formations including Ergenekon, a crime network that has links within the state and is suspected of plotting to topple the government, rather than the government.“There is no need to have such concern [about a partisan judiciary]. It already exists. But who does the partisan judiciary favor? Who can now deny the occupation of the judiciary by Ergenekon and [Republican People's Party] CHP supporters and ultranationalists?” Şamil Tayyar from the Star daily asks. Saying that this necessitates reform, Tayyar states that the judiciary should neither be the supporter nor the opponent of the government as it cannot act as an opposition party, either. “Moreover, everyone should abandon this fallacy of the ‘independence of the judiciary.' The judiciary cannot be independent, but it should be impartial. The principle of separation of powers cannot be defined as autonomy,” he adds.
Noting that although Gerçeker implied in the text of his speech that the “partisan judiciary” was close to the government, Bugün's Adem Yavuz Arslan also thinks that it is clear, in folders that include evidence files relating to the third indictment of the Ergenekon case, who the judiciary is actually close to. “According to the Ergenekon prosecutors, top members of the judiciary have very close links with members of a terrorist organization. They support their claims with phone conversations and photos,” he says. Recalling a series of meetings with Ergenekon members, academics and bureaucrats held at the Kent Hotel in Ankara, which sought to exploit the influence of those high-ranking members of the bureaucracy who participated in the meetings and manipulate new post assignments in the judiciary, he says if there is a kind of partisan judiciary, it is certain that it is not in favor of the government.
Zaman's Mustafa Ünal finds it very significant that a senior member of the judiciary refers to the judiciary as partisan since he thinks that those who speak in the name of the judiciary should not be involved in everyday political debates and that they should chose their words carefully. Ünal admits that the judiciary should not be a supporter of the government and that it is wrong for it to align itself with the government. However, it is also unacceptable and wrong for the judiciary to act like an opposition party against the government. “The judiciary is a constitutional power in the system, not a central power, and it has limitations. Recently, we have witnessed that the judiciary violates its limitations. There should not be a partisan judiciary, but there should also not be an ideological judiciary, which acts like it has central power,” contends Ünal.
