It entails checks and balances, prevents the misuse of authority and brings governments to account for abuses of power. However, judicial effectiveness can itself be hampered by a lack of accountability. Therefore it needs to be counterbalanced by restraining mechanisms.The judiciary in Turkey is superficially similar to an accountable court system. Yet the Constitution in the hands and minds of the top courts, civic bars and certain lodges of acting and retired judges and prosecutors impedes the other branches of government from holding the judiciary accountable for its management, policy decisions and relations with interest groups. Undoubtedly, courts should be independent and have substantial freedom to manage their own affairs. However, they must also recognize that they are part of the government and are thus accountable to the public for their institutional actions.
The Turkish Constitution empowers the legislative branch to determine the judicial branch's structure, jurisdiction and resources. However, any attempt to use this power is turned into a crisis and the government and the Parliament have been paralyzed by judicial impasses and vetoes at the hands of partisan courts. These crises have included recent party closures, the obstruction of Abdullah Gül's presidential inauguration, the vetoing of legislative amendments aimed at accession to the European Union and the fines the government has paid in European human rights courts for violations of freedom of conscience and speech. Preventing replays of such crises is critical as Turkey transforms from a closed society into a global player and in terms of enabling honest judges to enact laws and administer justice.
Individual judges and courts face criticism on particular decisions everywhere. However, when the top state courts and the judiciary always act in accordance with a certain ideological stance they fall short in their duties. They undermine the government's capacity to provide the highest quality of service to the public. Therefore all good court systems strive not only to be accountable, but also accept external review and auditing. Such openness presents an excellent opportunity to educate the public and the other branches about democracy, equity, fairness and justice. The judicial branch itself should lead initiatives to identify the core elements of judicial accountability, fairness, impartiality and justice.
Identifying core responsibilities will clear the judiciary of the accusation that it is the product of ideologically motivated judges. It will engender institutional respect for the judiciary and all members of the bar who act with competence and civility and ensure the service to which the public is entitled.
Given the high degree of expected interdependence among the branches of government, each branch should understand and respect the others' roles. The judiciary must strive to work constructively with the other branches of government, but it must not hesitate to speak out when interference with the courts impedes judicial governance and accountability. This requires a sensitive balancing act. However, once the state's court systems develop and abide by the basic principles of judicial accountability, this will serve as a forceful reminder to the legislative and executive branches.
Rather than speaking in multiple and contradictory voices, the state's court system should exert efforts to establish working relationships and foster a culture of mutual understanding that reduces resistance, misunderstandings and systemic delays. This can be accomplished by arranging constructive discussions between parliamentary committees and judicial and legislative leaders. As appropriate, in public forums invited judges and legislators may exchange ideas in a continuing dialogue on collective issues. Coverage of such occasions by the media and even inviting foreign experts to these types of inter-branch exchanges on a regular basis would inform and improve the judicial, legislative and executive branches and also the public.
We need a judiciary that is neutral, reform-minded and committed to justice, progress and good governance. Then the legislative branch will have the final word on policy while the independent courts exercise the legitimate role of providing input for collective concerns and the consolidation of democratization and institutionalization. Public affairs offices need to work with the other branches of government and the media to educate them and the citizens about specific judicial decisions, performance and their role in the governmental system. Civic, academic and reform groups are indispensable in developing standards and defining issues. They help to develop long-term strategies to improve inter-branch relations and prevent and manage inter-branch conflicts.
The judicial branch will inevitably be subject to criticism for its actions. However, this should be welcomed in a free and open society. The judicial branch must articulate a clear vision of what it has to achieve to be fully accountable and demonstrate why the courts' ability to meet the public's expectations is dependent on the freedom to control and manage their own affairs. It must take every opportunity to communicate that message to its partners in government and civil society in order to develop a public declaration of the basic principles of judicial governance and accountability so that a just and developed Turkey can share its values, something many throughout the world are longing for.
Benzer Haberler 
