Partisan media show signs of intolerance to partisan judiciary

Prominent figures from the media and the judiciary spearheaded debates on the term “partisan.” The purpose was to underline the existence of a pro-government media and judiciary. The media bickered with each other. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan attempted to retaliate by calling those who initially circulated harsh accusations the “pro-opposition partisan media.” His attempt was effective.

But could the words “pro” or “anti” be used to describe the judiciary? Deputies with a legal background emphasize the mistake in pursuing such a debate regardless of the political party that is in question.

While the legal pundits of opposition parties blame the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) for causing polarization, one AK Party legal scholar said the underlying reason stems from the “inability to adjust to change" and added, "Those who are frantic about losing privileges can lapse into this error.”

The status quo's unwillingness to adjust to change may be one of the reasons behind some of the most staggering difficulties this country has had to face. Efforts to give a legal pretext to the quorum of 367 nonsense, created to obstruct the presidential elections in 2007, the Constitutional Court's loss of prestige during that period, the double standards applied concerning the drafting of a civilian constitution, attempts by the Supreme Board of Judges and Prosecutors (HSYK), which disbarred Ferhat Sarıkaya -- a prosecutor who wanted coup leaders to stand trial, to reassign judges and prosecutors in the Ergenekon case and many other examples have caused the high judiciary to suffer a serious erosion of prestige.

Supreme Court of Appeals President Hasan Gerçeker's “partisan judiciary” statement in his speech during the opening ceremony of the new judicial year wore down the country even more. Gerçeker skipped a part in his speech notes that read “We must work to create not a partisan judiciary, but a completely independent and impartial judiciary” on grounds that the text of his speech was too long. But when answering questions from the press after his speech, he defended his “partisan judiciary” accusation with a vicious smile.

The crux of the criticism was a judicial reform package. As the most senior person in the judiciary, Gerçeker was expected to make a healthy assessment but said he believes the reform is a mistake.

Lacking any concern about legal awareness or legal unity, Gerçeker made statements about democratic awareness that did not befit his capacity. He considers judicial reform unacceptable just because we take other democratic countries as an example and is not open to the idea of Parliament electing a member to the HSYK. Gerçeker said: “It is said that some parliaments in European states have the authority to select members to the supreme board. However, in those countries the democratic parliamentary system has been adopted and functions with all its laws, institutions and organizations. But constitutional principles such as judicial impartiality, judge-prosecutor protection, state of law and a democratic secular and social constitutional state are still controversial issues in our country.”

Noting that this statement has embarrassed him, a social democrat legal scholar friend of mine said, “Does having a quality problem in democracy justify defending a non-democratic legal state at the highest level?” Wanting democracy on the one hand and opposing a legal system that is compatible with democracy on the other is normally an incomprehensible deadlock. But when we look at the issue from the perspective of the intolerance of the status quo, the issue becomes clearer. Turkey is becoming democratic and the legal system is bound to adjust to this change.

Bahçeli’s ‘can’t compete with Erdoğan’ excuse

The next expected general elections are more than two years away, yet planning has begun at political party headquarters. Ankara is gearing up for a busy convention season with the start of October. Along with the united Motherland Party (ANAVATAN) and the Democrat Party (DP) conventions, five parties will spend the next five weeks publicizing their presence. Leaders will not change, but debates on projects to make leaders appear more sympathetic to a broader segment of society will gain momentum.

The performance of leaders was discussed during the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) Central Executive Board (MYK) meeting. It was suggested during the meeting that if Bahçeli interacts more with the public, it would be good public relations. However, the MHP leader apparently said he could not outdo Erdoğan with respect to interacting with the public.

The MHP leader, who explained the difficulty in taking such steps, responded to the MYK's request to develop dialogue with the public in these satirical words: “He reads poetry, he becomes emotional and cries, he rides a horse, he falls off a horse. How can I compete with that?”