What a mess!

There are, however, a few sides to the issue:

1. Contradiction between the decisions of the Constitutional Court, the Council of State and the SBE. The starting date for raising objections to the results of the census is clearly stated as March 22, 2008 in the Constitutional Court’s decision, which is the law’s enforcement date. The Council of State on the other hand says that they learned that regions have a right to object to the court’s reasoned decision, after the court’s announcement. Therefore, the starting date should be Dec. 6, 2008, the date of the announcement. The SBE has announced they will follow the Council of State’s decision.

The problem is not to determine which view is right. The problem is that the Constitutional Court’s decisions being binding. Article 153 in the Constitution envisages that the court’s decisions are binding for the decisions of judicial bodies as well. Article 138 states that judges will rule in accordance with the Constitution. And the Constitutional Court is the body to determine what is appropriate. If the court had not announced a starting date for objections, the Council of State could have had an interpretation domain. But the date is specified. Therefore, even if the Council of State disagrees with it, it should follow the decision. The law state begins in the judiciary at first.

Importance of anti-thesis
2. The statement of Haşim Kılıç, chief justice of the Constitutional Court: Have you ever heard of the chief justice of the high court in the United States or in Germany issuing a statement and justifying their decision? The role of the judge is limited with the reasoned decision of the court. The judge speaks through the reasoned decision or the anti-thesis he or she writes. The channel of expression is not TV cameras, but the decision reached by the judge. But if there is a necessity of making a statement on behalf of the court, it should naturally reflect the views of the all members of the court. The view of "I am making this statement for the majority and this is not of interest to those who are against the decision," is not convincing. First of all, the statement is being issued on behalf of the Constitutional Court. Therefore it concerns all judges. Besides, the decision is a whole its reason and counter-view.

Split occurs
3. Reliability of the judiciary: the statements of the chief justice and of eight members of the court afterward have revealed the split in the judiciary, weakened the reliability of the judiciary in the public eye. This is, I think, the biggest drawback created by the current situation.

Reliability of the judiciary is "sine qua non" in order to fulfill the task. Reliability means making people believe and trust in independence and neutrality of fair justice. It also means believing in judges’ moral standards and trusting that they are not in power struggle among themselves and not acting in any other way but to protect the Constitution and democracy. Reliability of the judiciary means that it remains outside political controversies. To believe in justice is important in terms of the people complying with the legitimacy of the decisions, though they are not agree with the decisions all the time.

They should have resolved inside
For this reason, disputes among or inside judicial bodies should have been resolved inside.

4. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s statement: Mr. Prime Minister’s statements about the judiciary casts the shadow of politics over the judiciary. He creates the impression of an either pro-government or anti-government judiciary. But the judiciary is neither. This has happened again.

Neutrality and reliability of the judiciary in a country is a ground where the law state and democracy reside on. We should pay utmost attention not turn this ground into a mess.

Rıza Türmen is a former judge at the European Court of Human Rights, or ECHR, and a columnist for the daily Milliyet in which this piece appeared yesterday. It was translated into English by the Hürriyet Daily News & Economic Review’s staff