BY ORHAN BIRGIT
CUMHURIYET- Speaking for the government concerning the General Staff's declaration last Friday, Justice Minister Cemil Cicek said that issuing the declaration in such a contentious atmosphere would be seen as an attempt to affect the top court's decision on last week's first round of the presidential election.
Similar accusations have also been made through the Justice and Development Party (AKP) front by certain journalists and people with scholarly titles, aimed at carrying out a campaign of disinformation on the Constitutional Court. Some have said that the top court's ruling on whether a quorum of 367 is needed would constitute interfering in the will of Parliament, the representative of the nation's sovereignty.
Unfortunately, a similar comment was also made by main opposition Republican People's Party (CHP) leader Deniz Baykal during a press conference yesterday. Baykal claimed that if the top court rules no quorum is needed, this would deepen the current conflict. This statement didn't suit Baykal, who has a law decree.
Not only the ruling party, but also the CHP leader should take a lesson from Constitutional Court Chief Justice Tulay Tugcu's recent statement that the top court decides only in line with the Constitution and legal procedures.
To those who imply that the top court can be swayed or that its ruling could be a catalyst for conflict, I say this: Cannot the members of the top court, who decide only on behalf of the nation by taking into consideration legal procedures, when necessary, show the courage of others' courage who firmly decried the Turkish Armed Forces' (TSK) declaration?
Or, what logic lies in predicting the sentence of the court prematurely just by considering the justices' appointment by President Ahmet Necdet Sezer or his late predecessor Turgut Ozal?
The first warnings saying a quorum 367 deputies is needed in sessions to elect the president were made last December. Since then, debate over the matter has been continuing.
Parliament couldn't meet that number. In addition, Parliament Speaker Bulent Arinc's stance ignoring the legal warnings exacerbated the tension.
The military intervention of May 27, 1960 happened against the stance of the ruling Democrat Party (DP), which saw itself capable of enacting all laws and making all decisions on behalf of the nation, as it had the majority in Parliament then.
If Turkey had had a Constitutional Court back then, the ruling DP's attempt to establish an order under an 'Investigation Commission' could have been headed off through legal means without any public harm.
Today's politicians should appreciate the value of having a guarantee of the Constitutional Court.
They know the importance not only of the existence of such a court but also of being a citizen of the same country along with the millions of others resolved to protect democracy, secularism and the republic at the same time.
If millions of people are showing their determination to protect these ideals by gathering en masse in squares, Ataturk's republic is on track and the future of the nation is bright.
In line with my 50 years of political experience, this is how I see the recent rallies, especially those in Ankara's Tandogan and Istanbul's Caglayan.
Just so, the desire of people who flocked to the squares to join political forces during the elections can be well understood by all politicians who say they strongly believe in the republic.