Istanbul 45th Civil Court of First Instance annulled the CHP Istanbul 38th Ordinary Provincial Congress and dismissed the Özgür Çelik administration and appointed a delegation consisting of Gürsel Tekin, Zeki Şen, Hasan Babacan, Müjdat Gürbüz and Erkan Narsap for the provincial administration.
The CHP administration's reaction to the decision was ‘we do not recognize it’.
CHP Chairman Özgür Özel said in a live broadcast on Halk TV that the court's decision is null and void for them and that they will not recognize the decision.
Özgür Çelik, who was suspended from duty, also announced that they did not recognize the decision and would continue their duties.
What does it mean that the opposition does not recognize the court decision?
As is well known, there have been many national and international court rulings in Turkey in recent history that the government has failed to recognize and implement.
The rulings against Can Atalay, Osman Kavala and Selahattin Demirtaş were not implemented by the government.
In other words, there is a de facto equivalent for the government to say ‘I do not recognize the court decision’. Unfortunately, there is no de facto equivalent for the opposition not to recognize the court decision - unless a de facto situation is created.
But can the opposition create a de facto situation?
If it can, why not create a de facto situation to enforce the court ruling against Can Atalay, which has not been implemented for months?
Or was what happened to Can Atalay not ‘unlawful’ enough?
For example, can the CHP legally and de facto keep Özgür Çelik as Istanbul Provincial Chairman?
Unfortunately, this is not possible.
Now there will be those who will say. “When Canan Kaftancıoğlu was banned from politics, the CHP administration at the time said that they did not recognize this decision.”
Yes, they did. It is true that they made such a statement.
And what happened in practice?
CHP members politically continued to call Canan Kaftancıoğlu ‘our Istanbul Provincial Chairperson’.
However, Gülsüm Hale Özcömert Coşkun was appointed acting Provincial Chairperson and she signed the official procedures.
Let us now turn to the political dimension. In authoritarian regimes, it is always in the interest of those in power to say ‘I do not recognize the court decision’.
Because governments have the power to create a de facto situation by going outside the law. The opposition, on the other hand, derives all its legitimacy and power from being within the law.
That is why the opposition everywhere in the world calls on the government to respect the constitutional order and the law.
In fact, let alone the legal opposition, let us illustrate this situation with a very striking example from Turkish political history.
Deniz Gezmiş, the founder of THKO, who was executed on charges of ’attempting to change the constitutional order by force', and his friends had invited both the court and the government to abide by the constitution during their trial at the Ankara Martial Law Command Court No. 1.
Deniz Gezmiş addressed Ali Elverdi, the President of the Martial Law Court, as follows:
“The indictment alleges that we attempted to abrogate the Constitution by force. As I have already stated, we are the ones who defend the Constitution the most in this country. Those who violate the Constitution are obvious. We are the ones who want the Constitution to be implemented. Those who do not implement the Constitution are still in the open. And again those people want our heads. The prosecution is deliberately claiming that we are attempting to abrogate the Constitution.
The prosecution is against the War of Independence that we are waging. It is against the Constitution of the Republic of Turkey, against the reforms and therefore claims that we are attempting to abrogate the Constitution.”
Could it be that today's CHP leaders see themselves as more revolutionary than Deniz Gezmiş? Of course they can, there is no obstacle to that.
However, the THKO youth who started an armed struggle to overthrow the government were actually exposing that the government was acting outside the constitutional order and expressing that they were the ‘legitimate’ ones.
Saying ‘we don't recognize the court's decision’ may no doubt excite some young friends, but by taking this path, the government will have gained a big trump card against the opposition in making illegality normal.
It is also necessary to think about the possible consequences of some statements made with excitement and emotion.