A judicial reform bill aimed at addressing the fundamental shortcomings of the judicial system has not yet been debated in Parliament. This vacuum in the judicial system stands as one of the most serious of problems that create a sense among the Turkish citizenry that justice is not being done.
While the Turkish judicial system is problematic in general, the military judicial system constitutes another significant roadblock standing in the way of establishing the supremacy of the rule of law. Parliament, however, took a historic step in late June with an amendment to a law that paved the way for civilian courts to try members of the military accused of crimes that include threats to national security, constitutional violations, organizing armed groups and attempts to topple the government.
But the fate of the bill has become uncertain since the main opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP) took the case to the Constitutional Court to try to get the bill overturned. The court, notorious for its highly politicized decisions, is scheduled to hear the case soon.
Nevertheless, the amendment to the law initiated by the ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party) is an important step towards democratic reforms.
The Ergenekon trials have shown the poor state of the Turkish judiciary when the jurists themselves are severely divided and polarized over the case. There are several retired generals and active duty officers as well as academics, businessmen and journalists who are being tried for fomenting an armed plan to unseat the government.
Some jurists and professors of law have taken a position defending those accused of involvement in unconstitutional acts such as coup plots, claiming that they are punished because they have a different ideology than that of the government. This double standard among jurists has inflicted serious damage within a public that wonders about the rationale behind the support lent by some jurists to those accused of coup plots, while they are indifferent to teenagers put in jail, for example, over charges of throwing stones at police during demonstrations.
Similarly, those jurists defending some of the Ergenekon suspects were also indifferent to the case of their colleague, prosecutor Ferhat Sarıkaya. He was disbarred in reaction to an indictment he wrote following the November 2006 bombing in the southeastern town of Şemdinli. Two noncommissioned officers were accused of being behind the bombing of a bookstore in Şemdinli, and Sarıkaya’s indictment implicated senior generals in the incident.
But this unjust judicial system cannot go on forever because the Turkish public has been maturing. In addition to reform bills on the judiciary pending Parliament approval, democratically minded jurists are also in search of a change to the equation in favor of a judicial system respecting the supremacy of the rule of law.
Those jurists are prepared to announce in a month’s time a new union as an alternative to the existing and highly politicized Judges and Prosecutors Association (YARSAV).
Dr. Osman Can, rapporteur to the Constitutional Court and famous for his democratic stance in several cases including the closure case of the ruling AK Party, is among those jurists to join the new union that will be an alternative to YARSAV.
In a statement to YARSAV last week Can announced his decision to quit YARSAV, of which he was a founding member, on grounds that the association has turned into a tool for politics instead of serving as a jurists union. He accused YARSAV of defending military coups.
The new union in the offing raises hopes that despite the existing chaos, good things are also taking place on the judicial front.
Benzer Haberler 
