A judge may not make his decision based on his ideology or the potential intentions and thoughts of the defendants.

- 18 / 05 / 2008 09:39

Party closure has become a general custom of Turkish politics, with 24 political parties having been closed down so far.

Two parties are currently facing closure cases: the ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party), which received 47 percent (16.5 million votes) of the vote in the July 22, 2007 elections, and the Democratic Society Party (DTP), which received 4 percent (2 million votes) of the vote in the same elections.

The choices of 18.5 million voters are now subject to a political ban.

In democratically governed countries, political parties are the warranty of the regime. It is impossible to describe a political regime as a multiparty democracy unless it includes more than one competing party.

Turkey moved to a multiparty system in the 1950s in response to external pressures and developments; however, circles eager to maintain the single-party mentality have had difficulty accepting this development.

From a practical perspective, does party closure have any benefit? Undoubtedly, no. It bears no benefit or outcome other than undermining the democratic tradition of the country.

The Welfare Party (RP), Turkey's largest party at the time, was closed in 1998; subsequently, the Virtue Party (FP), which ranked third in the April 18, 1999 elections, was banned from politics.

The closed-down parties were well supported by society and were not marginal parties. Whether the criminal elements referred to in the closure cases of these parties and used to justify this action actually constituted an offense or crime under the law was very controversial.

But what is worrisome and of concern is the style used by the chief prosecutor that permeates the entire text of the indictment prepared in relation to the party closure case. Because style can be considered a sign of substantive content, it is possible to make a plausible comment on the mindset of those who prepared the indictment on political parties and democracy.

The chief prosecutor described FP members as "bloodthirsty vampires" and "malignant tumors." These expressions are not proper for a legal text, which should be based on substantiated facts, logical explanations and convincing arguments.

These were simple attempts at denigration and insult. A lawyer, regardless of his political view, religious belief, philosophical alignment, ethnic background and personal attitudes, may not reflect any element of these views or beliefs in his professional capacity simply because he is in a position to make a decision on legal or real personalities.

Because he is obligated to ensure the preservation of confidence in the law and the legal system, a lawyer is required to remain patient, impartial and calm vis-à-vis a defendant even if the latter is his political or ideological opponent. Even if he believes that the defendant is guilty as charged, the defendant remains a defendant until the final verdict and, as a defendant, he is entitled to some basic rights.

The Prophet Muhammad says: "Beware! When you bring a case to me, one of you may speak eloquently and the other may become unable to explain his part. I make my judgment based on how the case looks."

Basing the final judgment on the outer appearance means that the decision is made in reference to concrete, objective and substantive facts.

A judge may not make his decision based on his ideology or the potential intentions and thoughts of the defendants. Because crime or offense requires material elements, the evidence should also be clear and substantive. Intended actions, thoughts and designed plans may not be considered crimes unless they become actions. Because crime is individual, the punishment should also be individual. No one may be held liable for some one else's actions. Punishment may not be collective and based on vengeful feelings and sentiments.

These are the values enshrined in the universal legal culture. When these are not observed and the judiciary is politicized, the legal protections and guarantees over the people who live under this legal or constitutional system are significantly undermined.

 Law is as essential to people as water and air. When justice, the final outcome and goal of law, disappears or is not served, nothing bears any value because it is justice that keeps the government alive and sustains it.

As frequently stated, "Legality and law are essential for everyone" for fundamental rights to be protected and for justice to be maintained.