As you know, the status quo-defending establishment, with all its parts, is putting up a fierce resistance against all efforts to transform Turkey's government into a system that is more liberal and more respectful of individual rights, one in line with rising modern universal values. In this resistance against the demands and expectations of an overwhelming majority of the people who dream of a more democratic, liberal and prosperous Turkey, it seems that no state institutions shows even an iota of hesitation in audaciously playing the hampering roles assigned them.With the army, institutions of higher learning and para-civilian society organizations already playing their part, the latest institution to be pushed forward onto the battlefield has unfortunately turned out to be the high judiciary, whose impartiality and objectivity should remain immune from all doubt. This latest development did not escape the attention of European Union and European Parliament officials, just as it did not escape notice by international institutions following developments in Turkey. You must have pored over the reports and views on the issue published in yesterday's edition of Today's Zaman.
What used to once be perpetrated by military juntas and gangs that had extensions in the state has now been assumed by high judicial bodies that are fraught with a rigid interpretation of Kemalism. In recent months, the high judiciary has become the hub of opposition against the political power as if there were no political parties that represent the various views and expectations of Turkey's people. The fact that a declaration issued the other day by the Supreme Court of Appeals Board of Chairmen is no different in terms of the language it employs than either the military memorandum issued on April 27, 2007, the memorandum of March 12, 1970 or the messages from last year's "republican rallies" -- designed to create the socio-psychological ground needed for any kind of anti-democratic intervention -- demonstrates the gravity of the situation into which the judicial bodies have been dragged, whereas their one and only duty is to protect individual rights against the hegemony of the state and other forces.
The judiciary -- the most important of state institutions we are obligated to rely on even if all injustices and contraventions of law are perpetrated by them -- is attributing to itself a deific sanctity and is attempting -- by abusing its much-coddled quality of being obligatorily trusted -- to establish a hegemony over the legislative and executive bodies born out of the legislative body, which represents the public will, thus irreparably eroding its legitimacy in the people's view.
Yes, it is true; we should of course coddle the impartiality of the judiciary. However, it remains very controversial to what extent we can talk about the impartiality of a judiciary that has started acting like a political party by becoming a very blatant element of polarizing political debates, a judiciary that has abjured its impartiality to a great degree by creating an impression that it is acting upon the aims of a political party that long ago abandoned its hopes of ever winning an election.
Today, the judiciary has become so defiant that it has started to encroach on the legislative powers of Parliament, the sole state body with the power of making all the legislation that constitutes a base for the existence and decisions of the judiciary. It is not only attempting to impose limitations on the legislative organ, but it also even trying to replace it through its decisions, devoid of legitimacy. Such a judiciary, therefore, fails to prevent its legitimacy from becoming a controversial one in the minds of large crowds of people whose greatest expectation is to live in a country governed with a democratic legal system meeting global standards.
Let's note an excerpt from the declaration of the Supreme Court of Appeals Board of Chairmen: "… the presentation to the public of a draft that amends the whole of the Constitution in line with the request and instruction of a political party, which presents this draft as the 'most accurate and modern constitution,' by taking advantage of the general public acceptance formed only with respect to the amendment of some adjudications of the Constitution." This sentence makes it obvious that judges perceive even an initiative to draft a democratic, civilian constitution through a transparent process as being against themselves, proving that they are incapable of even displaying a democratic attitude toward the government's process of drafting a constitution that will meet the needs of the day. For this reason, shadows are being cast on the legality -- based on independence and impartiality - of a judiciary dominated by such judges. Furthermore, the declaration, which perceives even criticism of a lawsuit which calls for the closure of the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) on utterly nonsensical grounds as an intervention in the judiciary, has no other purpose, almost in its entirety, but to influence the members of the Constitutional Court.
On the other hand, the government is shaking off its undignified dead silence and adopting a bolt upright stance against this declaration, as it did last year after the April 27 memorandum, by issuing a counter-declaration deserving much applause as the democratic reflex we have longed for. Moreover, it is impossible not to agree with the part of the government's counter-declaration -- announced by State Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Cemil Çiçek -- that reads: "The declaration issued by the Supreme Court of Appeals Board of Chairmen lacks not only democratic legitimacy but also legal legitimacy. This is a political statement and cannot, therefore, be accepted under any circumstances."
A situation in which the judiciary itself erodes the law and harms the sense of justice instead of solely ensuring justice is the most unfortunate and dangerous situation a country can fall into. Judges should at once renounce their desire to play this dangerous game. If they really are interested in engaging in politics instead of hiding behind the law, they should resign immediately and start struggling on the political scene as real men do. The judicial system is not something that can afford to be coarsely exploited by men of law for political purposes -- or at least it should not be.
Benzer Haberler 
