First of all we should know that it is just a coincidence that unlike expected the Constitutional Court has not been devastated by its referendum package with its current condition and composition. The Court may have done worse and we have no legal and constitutional guarantee to hinder it. Maybe the only guarantee is that the Constitutional Court members are composed of people and like any other person they are not closed to the effects of the politics though the opposite is claimed. However today we face the truth which is the fact that in case the Constitutional Court violates the constitution overtly or secretly, there is not a precaution for this. It is clear that this situation encumbers the court membership.

Today we can find solace in when the Constitutional Court did not cause much destruction with its definite comments on the constitutional amendments which was forbidden in the constitution. But our problem of the Constitutional Court still continues severely.

In the interference area formed in terms of “cannot be offered to be changed” with the last decision, it indeed makes a very clear rule that regulates the jurisdiction of the Constitution invalid. As there is not any constitutional amendments that can be included in this area with the ability of interpretation if it is desired.

The first three articles of the Constitution, which even cannot be offered to be changed, are about the republic structure of the TurkishRepublic and being “a democratic, secular and social law state”. The cancelled clauses were based on irregularity with the principle of “law state” because the principle of “irregularity” is the key point. The members of the Supreme Council of Judges and Public Prosecutors and the Constitutional Court are composed of lawyers or some senior bureaucrats and this is an alternative for all contemporary law systems; thus when one of these alternatives is appealed, it does not mean that the principle of law state “will not be changed”. Eventually how the principle of state law will be more effective and successful is always a matter of debate for politicians. And if a decision in this direction is cancelled due to “irregularity”, it is cancelled exactly for this reason by the mandatory provision “in a state of even cannot be offered to be changed”.

For that reason, the 4^th article of the Constitution clearly says that “the first three articles” cannot be changed and completely leaves the matter of how these articles can be best applied to the politics. Therefore the Constitutional Court was not wanted to be a part of it with the claim and idea of irregularity with the Constitution; for every constitutional amendment can be found irregular with the present constitution-if wanted. As befits the name, this is an intervention to the present constitution. And every intervention indispensably hurts the unity of the past.

It is crystal clear that the Constitutional Court went beyond its authority with the headscarf issue, the 367 decision, and later the nullification of the 10^th and 42^nd articles. The Constitutional Court did not intervene in the way to change the essence of the package. It is possible to connect it with the pressure of Turkey’s development on them which cannot be ignored even by them. In fact the Constitutional Court did not go much further no matter what the reason was; yet we understand that it wants people know that it can go much further if it wants.

Actually the Constitutional Court has shown that it stands behind its clear violations by interfering to the essence of the amendment that it was supposed to approve in the past. It also wanted its jurisdiction formed by making a fait accompli, adopted as a norm.

On the other hand, when everyone criticizes the Constitutional Court and its members, the ones mainly responsible for this fault seem to be forgotten. Ultimately everyone says that the Constitutional Court violated the constitution seriously; yet nobody questions the attitude of the 111 signatories who tempted the Constitutional Court and encouraged it to enter this forbidden area.

Those signatories are so called politicians and by means of harming the Constitutional Court what they deny is indeed their own existence. Is not it more serious fault if they present the Constitutional Court such an alternative when the Grand National Assembly of Turkey has not given what they have wanted? The Constitutional Court makes a decision in accordance with the number of votes not in accordance with the laws in case of an appeal. It also does not abstain from trying different ways which are possible in mathematics not in law.

Does one have to be a member of the Constitutional Court in order to know that the Constitutional Court will not evaluate the constitutional amendments in terms of their essence? Is there any ambiguity of this issue on the text?

Of course there is not.

Is it proper if those representatives present the Constitutional Court such an alternative as if encouraging it to sin although there is not any ambiguity? When there was not any text on the constitutional amendment, the ones who claimed that they would carry this to the Constitutional Court, do not aim to make politics but to try to destroy the politics willfully from the beginning.  

Under these circumstances, this question should be asked by simplifying it. Don’t the Republican People’s Party supporters have faults as the seducers and instigators for the scandal decisions of the Constitutional Court?

(Published on Yeni Şafak [newspaper] on July 10, 2010)