Justice is a trial

Justice is of course not a randomly chosen name in the name of the AK Parti. It is a double-edged sword that will keep it constantly connected to its own spiritual root, the reference of the world it claimed and demanded while in opposition, which while in power also cuts toward itself... A warning call that will alert it whenever it senses a slackening in its own claims while in power and make it return to itself again... A memorandum that will remind it that, however much distance has been covered, the destination is still far off and there is still much road to travel...

Justice is the AK Parti's true identity, and the first condition of realizing it lies in always assuming that it may be against us, against those close to us, even against our own selves. Not giving up on justice even when the outcome seems to be to our detriment. Our anger at a people, a group or a party must never lead us to injustice toward those who belong to that people, group or party. We must never abandon justice and measure.

In the days when the AK Parti came to power, the situation Turkey was in presented a picture in which the balance of justice was off, economically and socially as well as in politics and the judiciary. What was done in the field of economic and social justice undoubtedly achieved a very significant distance in realizing this justice. Looking at the figures today, they show us that very significant distances have been covered. Thirty-two percent of society lived below the hunger line of 4 dollars; today no one does. The level of welfare that society has reached in health, education and social services has been delivered for the benefit of every segment, true. But compared with the situation at the starting point, we are no longer at a point where the AK Parti can find consolation for itself and boast of what it has done.

The AK Parti should now be in a position to compete with itself and should create new reference points for the establishment of justice. Today, to measure the distance to justice, what should be taken as the baseline is not what has been done but what could have been done further and has not been. The inefficient management of human and material resources is the most important obstacle to the establishment of justice to a greater degree. Even though it has shown a serious difference from other parties in this respect so far, it must be said that this is the most important issue that has lately been challenging the AK Parti.

Justice is in fact related to every field. Putting everything in its proper place, giving everyone their right fully and as due. On the assessments of who has what right where, there are of course serious differences between liberal, socialist or conservative philosophies. Political movements or governments are classified according to the programs and practices they put forward on this.

But on whether the AK Parti is conservative, social or liberal in this respect, every kind of debate can be had. It displayed an extremely liberal appearance on market policies and minority rights, a conservative one on religion and family matters, a social democratic one on the financing of social services and welfare-state policies, and a radical democratic performance on democratization, freedom of expression and human rights.

Frankly, this performance, which does not fit exactly into any known and familiar political category, made the AK Parti stand out as a model of its own. The policies pursued and the legal reforms made in all these fields were laid out in a broad list in the book published in 2012-2014 under the name "Sessiz Devrim".

The most important field regarding justice is of course the judiciary. A situation in which "the rule of law" was understood and applied as the supremacy of legal bureaucrats was for years considered the greatest obstacle to the realization of justice in Turkey. The rule of law should have been the most important institutional foundation for establishing justice.

When it was understood and applied as the supremacy of jurists, the judicial bureaucracy was left in the hands of whoever seized it. The judicial institution, in the hands of certain social strata, had in practice put its own supremacy ahead of the ideal of justice and was functioning as an institution of tutelage in a coalition it had formed with the military and other bureaucratic forces. Proceeding from the view that changing this was the first stage in establishing justice, many reforms were made in the judiciary.

The referendum held on 12 September 2010 showed how high the social demand was for the changes made in this field. But the share of other actors in the matter became clear over time. For this great step taken for democratization and for "the establishment of a justice valid for everyone," others had long since rolled up their sleeves for "a justice that would work only for themselves" and had made their preparations more than anyone. That the FETÖ members saw in these new reform areas a greater field of opportunity for their own infiltration dealt a very great blow to this justice initiative.

The cadre-ism that had nested itself in Turkey's judicial system was merely reproducing itself through FETÖ. That the root of this cadre-ism in fact rested on a habit of infiltration going much further back became fully clear when day broke after the dark nights we lived through. The emergency that again made it necessary to apply a radical scalpel to the judiciary also showed how difficult it is to realize the ideal of justice in its final form. It taught us once again that we will never find a very comfortable environment in which to establish justice. Indeed, justice is an examination that reminds us of our responsibility, and everyone is called to this examination at a moment they never expected.

The discernment to tell how much of what confronted us on 17-25 December was a call for justice, how much was a threat to our survival, and how much was an intense abuse of our very sense of justice was itself the faculty of justice. Had this faculty not emerged in this way, today we would be at a point much farther from justice, condemned to the darkness of those who have made justice their own property.

This situation also leads us to think much more thoroughly about the dimensions of the relationship between justice and politics, and between power, property and justice.