Constitutional Court’s error to be rectified by people

Constitutional Court judge Osman Paksüt has irked certain circles by saying, “Whichever way we rule, it will dumbfound every segment like the arrival of Judgment Day!” in reference to the AK Party closure case.

Having inflicted considerable damage to its credibility, the Constitutional Court’s dilemma has been summarized by Osman Paksüt, its deputy head: “Whichever way we rule, it will dumbfound every segment like the arrival of Judgment Day!”


While Paksüt’s remark sums up the crunch, a lawyer deputy -- saying that this remark also clearly reveals the pressure they are under -- emphasized, “A supreme court cannot dispense justice after reaching this point!” This leftist deputy, good at sounding out the mood in the capital, later made this assessment: “He [Paksüt] says it will dumbfound every segment like the arrival of Judgment Day. First of all, this is not a remark befitting the deputy head of a supreme court. A larger segment of society has already suffered a great shock, if not a judgment day, with the filing of the closure lawsuit. They have already perceived the closure case as a message that they are ‘going to be shut down.’ I mean, let alone a judgment-day effect, a likely verdict in favor of closure will not even shock the public. Then we can conclude that Paksüt has been receiving hot messages from other places where all hell will break loose. If so, he is implying that a verdict against closure will wreak havoc on the neo-nationalist front. Well, that’s completely true because it’s not that easy to cover their ideology using the law!
“The pro-closure segments are seriously frightened now, foreseeing the grave price to be incurred in the aftermath of a closure. They have started thinking that they will lose far greater ground in the case of closure than they are losing today. Conversely, the pro-closure hawks are troubled by serious misgivings that a verdict against closure will trigger another process of radical reforms by the Justice and Development Party [AK Party]. In whatever direction the ruling is made, those who rejoiced on March 14 [when the lawsuit was filed by the chief prosecutor of the Supreme Court of Appeals] will suffer a serious shock!”
Another lawyer deputy from the AK Party noted that the Constitutional Court cannot consider likely future consequences while deliberating a case, adding that the verdict had to be made in accordance with the law. Saying that the remarks by Paksüt reflected the self-inflicted trauma of the court caused by distancing itself from the law, he stressed: “In order to regain its venerability and credibility, the Constitutional Court must undergo a change of philosophy. In order to eradicate the heavy pressures it is groaning under, it should be able to say: ‘I too have an inspection body. In democracies, the last word is spoken by the people at the ballot box. If the national will produces a decision contrary to my decision, that will be the final word, and I will change my decision according to that.’ If the Constitutional Court doesn’t say this, people will say it.”
When asked how people would respond, his answer touched on the change in the philosophy of the US Supreme Court in 1936: “In order to overcome the economic crisis that shook the world economy in 1929, countries developed their own policies. In the United States, [President] Roosevelt presented a number of projects to society. And when he was elected president, he turned the projects into law. However, the Supreme Court cancelled the law, finding it against the Constitution. However, the president passed the same legislation in 1934 with the same projects, and the Supreme Court cancelled it again in 1936 because it had the same aaaaaaa. In the meantime, the elections had drawn near. Roosevelt was saying, ‘What I’m doing is right.’ Indeed, the presidential race turned out to be between the Supreme Court and Roosevelt. He preserved his post by winning 60 percent of the vote. After the elections, he repeated his move a third time, and the Supreme Court deliberated the legislation once again, but this time it seemed to have undergone a change of philosophy. The court implicitly said: “The core of democracy is national willpower. The power in democracy relies on the national will, which is the foundation of sovereignty. If people approved his legislation, I cannot cancel it for a third time.”
So does the closure case signal the possibility of an early election in the coming autumn? Top-ranking AK Party officials, unwilling to talk about early elections yet, say, “We will engage in self-criticism and restructure our messages that embrace the entire society.” All that matters is whether the Constitutional Court will be able to realize a change of philosophy.
Ergenekon talk in embassies


Probably the most spoken-about subject behind the scenes in Ankara, with Parliament’s dizzying pace, is how life is lived so fast in the capital, fast and tiring enough to prematurely age one.
This “dizzying” talk takes on a different dimension at the receptions held in embassies in Ankara. Here is an assessment made at such a reception: “Because of its lightning-quick changes in agenda, Ankara far outstrips other capitals in giving a hell of a workload to embassy rapporteurs, who keep drawing up reports about Turaaa’s internal political affairs.” A rapporteur I spoke to expressed joy at the end of his term in Ankara: “Ankara is a beautiful city, I will probably miss it. However, I’m so happy because I will definitely be working less in my new post.” One of his friends did not miss the chance to make a joke about it: “Most of his contacts have been arrested in the Ergenekon investigation. His joy stems from that he is leaving the country before anything bad befalls him!”
Chilly mood in ANAVATAN triggers hot developments


Motherland Party (ANAVATAN) leader Erkan Mumcu, still under the shadow of accusations of having acted in unison with the Republican People’s Party (CHP) in the 367 crisis that stemmed from ideological differences disguised as “a legal matter,” will apparently continue having a tough time trying to cleanse the “anti-democracy stain” with which he has smeared himself.
Former Parliament Speaker Bülent Arınç called on former AK Party deputy Abdüllatif Şener, who is sending signals that he will be founding a new party, to turn back from this wrong path, saying, “You will end up like Erkan Mumcu; abandon this futile dream!”
Mumcu is treated like a “democracy patient” in his party, and his attempts to gather the general assembly to perpetuate his leadership have been frustrated by the heads of the city branches of ANAVATAN, who have sent him a declaration that conveys their desire to see him step down.
The call targets not only Mumcu but also former leader Mesut Yılmaz and other former or current ANAVATAN politicians on a list of “those with democracy defects,” prepared by ANVATAN delegates.
Upon hearing that the declaration would be published in the papers, Mumcu is reported to have convinced the delegates not to release it, assuring them, “I’m stepping down; I will not run in the congress again.”