The purpose is to seek grounds for compromise to ease the tension between the government and the high judiciary. As you know, the memorandum issued by the Board of Chairmen of the Supreme Court of Appeals about an ongoing closure case and the governmental counter-statement issued as a response to this memorandum have further heightened the tension. At this point, it is impossible to not agree with the editor-in-chief of the Star newspaper, who said: "The high judiciary is now sitting on a side opposite the law. It is demanding to share the powers of the legislative and executive bodies, and it is threatening to close down the party if its wishes are not fulfilled. We should know that the factor that issues the statement is not a unit of the judicial body but a political initiative in practice. It has no concerns about having to derive one's power from the people; and actually it doesn't care about the type of legitimacy based on public support. That is, the justices of the high judiciary prefer the most guaranteed way of politics. As a matter of fact, the chairman of the Supreme Court of Appeals must have adopted this political role so strongly that before any invitation is made by the palace he may say, 'If the president invites us, we can't refuse him'."
The oddness and the futility of seeking to talk and compromise with the Supreme Court of Appeals as if it is a political party although its powers are limited to rules of law are so obvious. In fact, what would the prime minister give to the Supreme Court of Appeals and take from it in such a case? Does a high judicial institution have the right to haggle over rules of law? I wonder if the justices are aware of the contradiction between their rhetoric of "the independence and impartiality of law" and their statement, "We are open to compromise."
Now, if you like, let's go to that day when this surrealist compromise meeting, which is impossible to find in a normal legal system and a real democracy, will be held, and amuse ourselves by writing a fictional dialogue to try to foresee in what sort of atmosphere the meeting will take place:
President: First of all, I'd like to thank you all for accepting this invitation and attending this critical compromise meeting, which envisages the nation's well-being and peace. Now I want to directly bring up the subject. I hope that this meeting will provide a ground for compromise and I officially begin the session. Mr. Prime Minister…
Prime Minister: Thank you Mr. President. First of all, I should note that the declaration of the Board of Chairmen of the Supreme Court of Appeals was an extremely unbecoming attitude. Neither our government nor Parliament deserves the accusation and insults in this declaration. However, let's put all this aside. We are here to eradicate the present tension and to reach an agreement and compromise. Without losing any time, I'd like to ask Mr. Chairman of the Supreme Court of Appeals what their demands from us are.
Chairman of the Supreme Court of Appeals: Mr. Prime Minister, we will not hide that we are against your government and the political movement under your leadership that has the majority of the seats in Parliament. However, we have had enough polemics with your government and Parliament because of the memoranda we have issued. We don't want to continue the polemics here and are moving on to our demands from you.
Prime Minister: Ah, please Mr. Chairman, go on. I'd like to hear your demands.
Chairman of the Supreme Court of Appeals: First of all, renounce all your efforts and desire to provide Turkey with the means to compete in the global markets under the current conditions. Both its internal resources and domestic market would suffice Turkey. You pay too much attention to the demands for civil freedom in the name of EU criteria. Just disregard them all. You should protect us, namely the state, which is the guardian of the established system, from people's demands of unrestricted freedom as much as you coddle individual rights and freedoms. For instance, don't pay any attention to those who demand freedom to an education and freedom of belief at the same time. Adopt the classic state approach which forces them to prefer either one of them. Stop trying to resolve problems such as the Kurdish issue or the Alevi issue and problems encountered in the field of income distribution as these are problems that can easily be manipulated by those segments with extensions in the state for their ultimate interests. Also, renounce your desire to make public services available for those other than the traditional beneficiaries of these services; namely those from the periphery.
While we are ill at ease even in regard to your efforts to improve ties with the EU, you can probably guess to what degree we are disturbed by your efforts to step up the cooperation with Islamic countries and draw Gulf capital to Turkey. In the meantime, we are disconcerted by the headscarved wives of the president, of you and of the ministers who brazenly appear in public places. Please take measures to stop that. We cannot stand seeing things other than that which we have grown so used to seeing for decades. Please don't force us to watch these unbearable scenes.
On the other hand, stop listening to the people's will, political preferences and expectations on issues related to freedom. Every state has its rules. As you know, the rules of our state are not determined according to people's expectations, but in line with our decisions on what is good for people. Please understand this now.
Prime Minister: I thank Mr. Chairman for speaking so bluntly. Suppose we have started to comply with all these demands of yours, what do you promise to give us in return?
Chairman of the Supreme Court of Appeals: Because of the peculiar conditions our country is in, the principles of the judiciary's impartiality and independence, the supremacy of law and people's equality before law have no importance at all. Well, you are already aware that I'm not speaking to you at the moment as a lawyer and judge. If you fulfill our demands, you see how quickly all the frictions between us will suddenly disappear. We are here to compromise, aren't we? You will backtrack on your efforts for resolution of problems with rights, freedoms, universal law and socio-political issues and retract your statements that assert that people are equal before the law and the regime regardless of belief, language, religion, lifestyle or social class. And in turn, by abusing the principles of law, we will freeze all our current actions and statements against you. We will start closely watching you to see to what extent you will be fulfilling the responsibilities incumbent on you as an outcome of our compromise and will leave you free to act within the limits we will determine for you in the event we are satisfied by your performance. When we say 'you,' it's not only you, but also all the legislative actions of Parliament.
Well, only a compromise between pears and apples could be this perfect. Couldn't it, dear readers?
Benzer Haberler 
