The government cannot be a "neutral observer" in the face of justice

"The failure to find an organizational link" in the Hrant Dink case was perceived as a bad, even outrageous, joke. That some people still go on mocking the intelligence of the people of Turkey, "as was often the case in the past," is naturally met with great astonishment, and this bad joke is met with the reaction it deserves.

We are now at a point where the sense and standard of justice have developed considerably in society. On Thursday, the 5th anniversary of the murder of Hrant Dink, the demonstration of tens of thousands of people marching for justice formed an effective warning that the social conscience can no longer be ignored in any way in the course of a case. This warning had an immediate effect. The jurists, politicians and bureaucrats who did not see the gravity of the matter had to look once more into the case, which was about to be passed over as a routine one. The statements of the presiding judge to the effect of "I too believe it was the work of an organization, but with the evidence at hand I could not have given any other decision" were immediately refuted by the case prosecutor, who once again drew attention to strong but already known evidence. It is clear that the shining anew of the prosecutor's "already known evidence" is very closely related to the atmosphere that was lived.

Although it appears right in principle for the government to approach the case in the context of the "independence of the judiciary," it has become clear that it cannot be content with approaching it as "a neutral observer" in such a way as to abandon justice to the mercy of a structure organized to the very marrow of the judiciary.

Frankly, both with regard to the Hrant Dink case and the Ergenekon cases, and with regard to the KCK operations and cases, the government sometimes assumes the stance of a "neutral observer" more than necessary. Yet these cases are the fields in which justice will manifest itself and in which the government's claim to justice will be tested most closely. The AK Parti-run government's avoiding appearing as an intervener in this can be understood up to a point, but we see that as long as it remains a neutral observer of these cases, the probability of falling under the guidance of others is also very high. In this case, the government's neutrality can be understood as partisanship in the opposite direction.

Frankly, although the reforms made in the judiciary may have fixed many things at the level of the high judiciary, the judicial bureaucracy's problems of education, mentality, ideology, excessive workload and carelessness are still out in the open. The judiciary, sometimes because of these and sometimes because of the operations of the old organizational structures within the judicial bureaucracy, still constitutes one of the riskiest areas for the government's policy of justice. It is always likely that the government will face bills in these areas for which it cannot put forward its ideal position of impartiality as an excuse.

The careless arrest decisions given in the KCK cases are increasingly tending to make "burning the wet along with the dry" a norm. Yet the principle of justice should focus first of all on separating "the dry from the wet." And of course, as a risk specific to this case, one must take into account that as the fire is raised, there will be no wet wood left around either. Let us not yet tell how much of the wet is tending to dry out in this field, merely because of the stubbornness the court continues to show on a single matter of "Kurdish statement."

It is a fact that the Justice and Development Party has so far recorded record-level successes at every level in the field of "development." Where Turkey has come from and where it has arrived in 10 years is plain to see. Frankly, "justice" is also another most important subject on which the party is assertive, or at least "writes" for itself. The reforms realized in the judiciary so far, the will and approach displayed in the Ergenekon cases, the performance displayed in income distribution in economic terms, and the practices in many other fields show that it is unrivaled on "justice" too. With these policies alone the government has displayed enough of a difference in the field of "justice." However, this difference is large when compared with its rivals and perhaps sufficient, but it is by no means as large a difference as the ideal of "justice" demands.

In fact the same goes for the field of development, but especially on "justice," the AK Parti has neither the right nor the luxury of seeing the present or predecessor parties or governments as its rivals. It must see that justice is increasingly the area in which it is most tested. Unfortunately, it is also increasingly the area in which it exposes most weakness.

This stems from its approaching "as a neutral observer" the cases that take place before the eyes of the whole people, which most people see from start to finish as a "government operation," and which in the end wound the public conscience. Yet in the absence of justice the interlocutor that people hold primarily responsible cannot be anyone other than the government.

The judiciary that "decided in the name of the nation" but had no responsibility whatsoever toward the nation must have been left behind before the judicial reform. The nation increasingly asks whether the judiciary deciding in its name overlaps with its own demands. The AK Parti has played a very important role in these questions being asked in the name of a more effective justice. However, a party that has played this role, and especially a party that has specifically written "justice" into its name, will be expected to be more protective of the "ideal of justice."

Footnote: The expression "a neutral observer" (bîtaraf bir müşahit) is an expression used accusingly toward the Darülfünun, in the face of the Republican revolutions, by Reşit Galib, the minister of education of the thirties. This criticism of his would end with the closure of the Darülfünun, which he accused of being indifferent to the Republic's policies such as the hat, the alphabet, history and language.