The opening speech of “The Rule of Law and Judiciary Conference during Democratization” at SDE was made by the Minister of Justice, Sadullah Ergin.
The plenary session of “The Rule of Law and Judiciary Conference during Democratization” was held at SDE. The meeting started with the Chairman of SDE, Prof. Dr. Yasin Aktay’s speech. And the opening speech of the meeting was made by the Minister of Justice, Sadullah Ergin. After the speech of the Ministry of Justice, the first session was held with the session moderator Hacettepe University lecturer Dr. Levent Korkut. The speakers of the first session was Journalist Taha Akyol, Assoc. Prof. Osman Can- Co-Chairman of Democratic Judiciary Organization-, Prof. Dr. Mustafa Erdoğan- the lecturer in the Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences at Hacettepe University-, and Prof. Dr. Levent Köker, the lecturer in the Faculty of Law at Atılım University. In summary, what is mentioned at the meeting, which the press was highly interested in, is below:
The Minister of Justice, Sadullah Ergin: The state of law is not merely the state that has a legal system, but the one that is based on the rule of law and dominated by the legal system which is compatible with the international standards. If we want to take successful steps and also want them to gain continuity, the executors should internalize these principles because it is one of the primary requirements. Another important requirement is that these reforms should be broad enough to include the whole state. Considering the fact that the judiciary power is one of the fundamental powers of the state and the judicial authorities are among the most important authorities to implement the reforms and principles, the implementation of the judicial reform as soon as possible has gained a great importance.
Taha Akyol: The judges were directly chosen by the Minister of Justice in 1934. I am saying this because I want the mentality of CHP party when Recep Peker is the secretary general, to be understood. On March 27, he discharged one sixth of the Court of Appeals members and half of the Council of State. After these discharges, they presented a “democratic” model. And it continued until 1971. If I had been able to vote at that time, I would have voted for DP Party. However, AK Party should not make the same mistakes as DP Party. DP Party made mistakes in bureaucratic relations. I made a research on the archive of Milliyet newspaper. During February 28 Period (1997-1998), the rate of the usage of the word “independence” with jurisdiction was 98% while it was 2% for the word “objectivity”. Between 1996 and 2006, this rate was equal for both words. As it is seen, the conditions in an era affect the concepts used.
Assoc. Prof. Osman Can: In a modern state, the judiciary protects what the system supports. Systems legitimize themselves with the judicial systems. If the judicial system is a hand carrying ideologies and systems in a modern state, so what are we fighting against? Even in dictator systems, the judicial systems are objective in private laws. And in a modern state, the judicial system shapes the state-individual relations. The people who supported modernism were also the ones that opposed democratization most. I prefer the concept of arbitrator rather than objectivity in the judicial system. Objectivity is a chilling word.
Prof. Dr. Mustafa Erdoğan: It was classically accepted that judiciary is apolitical body of the state. Although the judiciary is thought to be considered independent from the execution, it is acknowledged that the jurisdiction also has a function of execution. The judicial system somehow needs to be associated with the public will. It is particularly a very important point in periods of democratic changes. If the judicial system is thought to be totally independent from democratic processes, unaffected by the social changes, and introverted, there will be no change; it will not serve to democratization; on the contrary it will maintain the established order as it is. In my opinion, one of the principle problems that Turkey faces today is this.
Prof. Dr. Levent Köker: The separation of power divides the control. Today the classical legal system is divided. Modern states are also one of the state types. The statement of “In case of a conflict between international agreements in the area of fundamental rights and freedoms duly put into effect and the domestic laws due to differences in provisions on the same matter, the provisions of international agreements shall prevail.” according to Article 90 of the Constitution, is almost a revolution. Unlike in the past when it was a model of a nation state, Turkey is now under an authority beyond the nation. There are some elements of it. One of these elements is being a state a law. What is meant with a state of law is what matters. One of the characteristics of a modern state is that it is also a nation state. However, there is a tension between a modern state and a nation state today. Therefore, while considering the judicial reform and its relation with democratization, the separation of powers should have a place in terminology.