Of the 1,346 people interviewed, 78.7 percent said “yes” when asked whether there is a need for judicial reform in Turkey, implying that they regard the current state of the judiciary as problematic and in need of urgent restructuring. Moreover, judicial reform, together with the call for amendments to the Constitution, represent the only demands on which all political trends converge in an extremely polarized Turkey.Aside from the 17.8 percent who do not think the judicial system is problematic, an overwhelming majority, regardless of their religious, ideological or ethnic backgrounds, thinks that the judicial mechanisms that are supposed to maintain the due process of law are failing to administer justice. In this regard, there are no major differences between supporters of the ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party), the main opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP), the pro-Kurdish Peace and Democracy Party (BDP) and the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP). The supporters of all political parties that have groups in Parliament believe, in overwhelming majority, that Turkey should reform its judiciary -- 89.3 percent of BDP supporters, 82.8 percent of MHP supporters, 78.7 percent of AK Party supporters and 74.4 percent of CHP supporters. Of course, different groups may have different views about the reasons for the problematic structure of the judiciary. But the important thing here is that today the judiciary, in its current form, is perceived by the people as a problem, not as a mechanism that produces solutions or justice.
Who can then claim that the people are wrong or unjustified in demanding speedy reform of the defective judiciary? If the top judicial institutions in a country give the impression of maintaining an oligarchy by appointing each other within a narrow framework and if those judicial oligarchic structures tend to overstep their powers and usurp those of the legislative and the executive, such as denying municipal administrations the authority to set the price of mass transportation or preventing a democratically elected Parliament from passing simple legislation, then don’t you think there is a rather serious problem with the judiciary in that country? As you see, it is perhaps not possible to see the indications of a “civilian coup,” as is frequently claimed by certain groups, in this country, but we can be sure of the existence of a full-fledged pro-dictatorship juristocracy. Indeed, if the prime minister of a country and his wife cannot pay a visit to certain state institutions -- please remember how Emine Erdoğan was prevented rudely and inhumanely from visiting a patient hospitalized at the Gülhane Military Academy of Medicine (GATA) -- then how can one talk about a civilian dictatorship there?
When, in this country, a constitutional amendment intended to restore the right to education to girls who were denied a university education because of the headscarves they wore was passed by Parliament with the support of 411 out of 550 deputies, the Constitutional Court canceled it, overstepping its power and authority, at the expense of breaching the Constitution, which it is supposed to protect, didn’t it? Can there be any greater judicial dictatorship than this? Didn’t this cancellation render Parliament dysfunctional in terms of legislative work although it was freshly composed? Wasn’t the popular will represented in Parliament considered null by an arbitrary decision made by 11 judges following in the footsteps of the CHP? The illegality introduced by the Feb. 28, 1997, postmodern military coup was maintained by the top judiciary at the expense of violating the rule of law and the Constitution, wasn’t it? Can there be any greater juristocracy than this? Can there be more severe a judicial coup than this?
What about the decisions made by the Council of State? The Council of State, acting as the highest administrative court, has disregarded the rule of law and principles of equality and fairness in many cases in order to protect the militarist Feb. 28 decisions which denied many people the right to higher education, hasn’t it? Every move initiated by the Higher Education Board (YÖK) -- after it recently became relatively democratic -- to solve the coefficient issue, which has been victimizing many people, has faced the dictatorship of the Council of State, hasn’t it? Aren’t tens of thousands of vocational high school students and hundreds of thousands of their relatives still victimized by the ongoing judicial dictatorship today? Can there be any greater blockade or more salient judicial dictatorship than this?
Wasn’t it the Council of State that acted with major populism and canceled the price increases decided by the İstanbul and Ankara metropolitan municipalities concerning the intracity transportation? Doesn’t the Council of State know that a democratically elected mayor will be removed from office through democratic means if s/he fails to satisfy people’s expectations? If they know that, then why do they interfere with local politics? Are they so proficient in municipal finance that they feel confident in meddling with ticket prices? Do they also produce solutions to close the financial deficits caused by the lack of such price increases? Or do they intend to act like a political party in an arbitrary manner and engage in populism and leave the price to be paid by municipalities? Or is it that the people have elected the members of the Council of State instead of mayors to administer the municipalities? If the members of the Council of State desire so strongly to administrate municipalities, why don’t they run for mayor in the elections? No one would raise any objection to them, believe me.
Will the Council of State find a solution when the municipalities find themselves in financial hardship because they couldn’t increase ticket prices in the face of the rising fuel, maintenance and personnel costs? Will the Council of State collect the garbage and ensure that water flows from the taps and run intracity transportation smoothly? Will the people call the Council of State to account for the decreasing quality of life in cities because of the disruptions in municipal services due to the intervention of the Council of State? Can there be any greater anomaly, more scandalous encroachment or more despotic judicial dictatorship than this?
Still, Supreme Court of Appeals President Hasan Gerçeker prefers to lend a deaf ear to all these and the rising demands for change and continue to parrot the same tune. According to him, through judicial reform, the executive branch actually intends to blockade the judiciary. Isn’t what Mr. Gerçeker mumbles, but fails to utter clearly that the oligarchy of the top judiciary does not want to give up its arbitrary judicial dictatorship?
