History is not only a text written by those in power. Sometimes the words spoken by a single person in a courtroom change the course of history. It is not only the defendants who speak in court; it is the conscience of a society, the honor of democracy. These days, there is a debate in the political lobbies “I do not recognize the court, I will not defend myself” Although at first glance this approach is presented as a method of objection, it is in fact a choice to withdraw from the active role that political responsibility and the witness of history expect. Yet the political memory of this land whispers to us: Speaking, recording and using the truth as a shield is an inevitable duty.
Memory of the Defense: Testimony of History
Kazım Karabekir Pasha, When he was put on trial as one of the commanders of the War of Independence, he entered the courtroom not only as a defendant but also as the greatest witness of the struggle to establish the Republic. He did not keep silent by saying “this case is political”; on the contrary, he used the truth as a shield to exonerate both himself and the struggle he represented.
Similarly Deniz Gezmiş, In 1971, he did not only defend his own life in that courtroom. He defended his dream of a fully independent country and “You are the ones who deprive us of being the children of an independent country” and extended his finger like a marker to history. What keeps him alive in the conscience of the nation today is not the verdict of the court, but the memory he left on that bench. Bülent Ecevit that even in the most turbulent periods of politics, even under the most severe pressures, defense is not only an individual right; it is also is the honor of democracy emphasized. Ecevit and his friends returned to the top of the state from those difficult processes, not by remaining silent, but by making a note in history.
Corporate Responsibility and a Realistic Defense
Today Ekrem Imamoglu’s trial is a critical test in this sense. Although the content of the accusations is different from historical examples, if Mr. Imamoğlu wants to be a part of that historical series that he frequently refers to; he should not base his strategy on “not making a defense”, but against every allegation against him. develop concrete and rebuttal counter-theses on the basis of this. It is imperative for him to leave those halls fully exonerated in the public conscience, not only for himself but also for the institutional will he represents.
The best way for a politician to enlighten his party and his audience is to draw a road map. Choosing not to make a defense does not remove the allegations, nor does it meet the great need for vindication in the public conscience. Regardless of the verdict, what will go down in history is how those allegations were answered and how convinced the public was by that defense.
Conclusion Making a Note for the Future
The republican resolve for democratic struggle does not require remaining silent, but rather defending the truth with the strongest arguments. Adopting the method of retreating with periodic winds may not fulfill the necessity of recording history. Remember, history is primarily a science of recording. And history writes not only of those who are accused, but also of those who destroy those accusations with the truth and leave the truth as a legacy.
It is our inescapable duty today to remind history of all these truths. Ultimately, this process must result in the triumph of the law, with concrete evidence and a strong defense, rather than being sacrificed to the noise of populism. The expectation is not to remain silent, but to speak out. But not in vain, but with a force that will fill the memory of a country and bring justice!