The recent public debate goes beyond a polemic between two political figures and requires a rethinking of the relationship between the judiciary and politics in Turkey and the area of responsibility of public officials.
Akın Gürlek's response to Özgür Özel contains a very harsh political language, including the declaration of assets, the emphasis on the “corruption case of the century” and the allegations against Muhittin Böcek. At the center of the statement are two main elements: personal defense and accusations against the other side.
The first question to be asked here is: How usual is it for a public official - especially a former judge and prosecutor - to engage in a political polemic of this tone?
One of the cornerstones of the rule of law in Turkey is that members of the judiciary and senior public officials maintain the appearance of impartiality. This is not only a legal requirement, but also the foundation of public trust. The phrases “all lies” and “we will sue for compensation” in the statement can be understood as a legal reflex. However, political interpretations and assessments of the other side's intentions in the same text blur this line.
The second important issue is this: If there are serious allegations of crimes, should this be dealt with by political statements or by the judiciary?
The basic principle of law is clear: If there is an accusation of a crime, the independent judiciary is the addressee, not the public. Otherwise, what happens is that the boundary between the “legal process” and the “political message” is lost. This not only undermines trust in the judiciary, but also shifts the debate from the ground of information to the ground of perception.
On the other hand, allegations from the opposition need to be backed up by equally concrete data. The harsh language of politics often blurs the distinction between fact and interpretation. For this reason, both government and opposition actors have a great responsibility.
In conclusion, this debate reminds us of this:
In Turkey, the question is not only “who is right”. The real issue is how law can function without becoming a tool of politics, and politics without replacing law.
Because trust is built not with statements, but with consistent, transparent and institutionalized functioning.