No doubt, one should be able to trust the judiciary. This is because there is no solution to certain problems other than seeking the help of the judiciary. Yet, it is obvious that such trust has not been established. This has been the case for a long time. Half a century ago, a prominent Turkish intellectual and author said, "If tyranny is crowned by justice…" If only we had lent an ear to his cry back then.Today, things are more complicated. Some top judicial organs, which are supposed to embody justice and act as arbitrators, are perceived as if they were political parties -- in fact, not even as political parties at all, but as the approval authorities of a certain party. Unfortunately, this is how they are perceived. And, unfortunately, there is some merit in these perceptions. How unfortunate.
This did not occur all at once. It was the judiciary itself that inflicted the greatest damage on its image.
There is no need to go very far back in time to find examples. During the last presidential election, they engaged in some hocus pocus, disrupting the long-established parliamentary convention with a newly invented requirement for a quorum of 367. This is a perfect example of conjuring up a trick because in the past no such requirement was in place for the election of any of the previous presidents. With good intentions, some waited in vain for the Constitutional Court to step in and rectify this incorrect decision. Some members said, "We cannot explain this decision to future generations," but it was too late.
In another case, Parliament passed a bill with the support of 411 deputies. The powers and duties of the Constitutional Court had been clearly and unambiguously set forth in the Constitution, in addition to established conventions. But the Constitutional Court overstepped its limits and interfered with the content of the amendments. And it did this with unbelievably repressive justifications.
There is an organization called the Judges and Prosecutors Association (YARSAV); it comprises many top judges and prosecutors. Before 1980, there were organizations called Pol-Bir and Pol-Der; police officers were members of these organizations, but they were divided into two opposite camps. This eventually had an adverse effect on the people. And this is exactly how YARSAV is perceived. The head of this organization is sure to make a public appearance with respect to every political debate. Moreover, this person is still working as a prosecutor. But, for whatever reason, he can offer suggestions to the defendants of the Ergenekon case. He can assume an active role in the plot to close down a political party that received the support of half the country. There is also a member of the Constitutional Court who is as active as the YARSAV head. Unfortunately, he and his wife are involved in every political debate. There is another figure, acting as a judge in Ankara, who is as active these people. This man has issued bans on the publication of certain papers for articles the papers never even ran. He applies to courts to ensure that it issues the most unusual decisions in the history of law. Moreover, he appears on live TV programs to defend decisions that clearly violate the Constitution and acts as if he is expecting someone to come up and engage in a debate with him on TV.
What I am trying to say is that the judiciary has not lost its credibility without reason. Even the last operation undertaken by the Supreme Board of Judges and Prosecutors (HSYK) was a big blunder. What the man on the street thinks is that "they are trying to intimidate the prosecutors and judges who are investigating the Ergenekon organization by using appointments and promotions." The HSYK is to blame for the creation of this image. If the people who have close relations with Ergenekon defendants and who attend their secret meetings and who describe them as "family friends" try to intimidate judges and prosecutors (or at least cause such a perception to be formed), this will most naturally discredit the judiciary.
Moreover, the people are already skeptical about the HYSK because of its past evil deeds. It is the HSYK that has turned the life of Şemdinli prosecutor Ferhat Sarıkaya into hell. Even supposing that the prosecutor's opinion was wrong, if you issue a disproportionate penalty such as barring Sarıkaya from his profession, then the collective conscious of the society will grow skeptical of you. The disproportionate penalty issued by the HSYK was overturned by the European Court of Human Rights. The European court demanded that Sacit Kayalı, a former prosecutor who was disbarred, be restored to his previous position. But the HSYK acts as if no such decision were issued.
Back to our original question: Is a reliable judiciary needed? Yes. But in order to have trust in the judiciary, it must be both independent and impartial. Judicial reform may serve to ensure this, but the real solution requires a mentality change. The members of the judiciary must remove their political identities. Another thing is that there are big questions as to whether the judiciary is impartial although it is independent. The judiciary is obliged to remove these doubts.
