Union of Turkish Bar Associations Chair, Metin Feyzioğlu, created a stir with a highly critical speech that he made at a ceremony to mark the opening of the judicial year, attended by President Abdullah Gül, Parliamentary Speaker Cemil Çiçek, Prime-Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, CHP Leader Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu and Minister of Justice Sadullah Ergin.
Here are some excerpts from the speech as reported in the
Cumhuriyet newspaper [my translation]:
“When we look at world and Turkish history, the expression ‘national will' has been favoured to a large extent by political regimes that have come to power through elections but have adopted majoritarianism instead of pluralism and have gradually started to display authoritarian tendencies.”
“The expression ‘national will’ must absolutely be interpreted differently from its content in periods when the majority oppresses the minority, the political regime has taken over every institution and has set out to regulate every sphere of life, and interferes in people’s life styles.”
“What is meant by these restrictions [on the oppression of the minority by the majority], contrary to what is alleged by certain parties, is absolutely not the oppression of the minority by the majority; what is meant is a culture of democratic compromise, participatory democracy, the preventing of a temporary majority from imposing absolute hegemony over a temporary minority, no attempt being made to dictate to people how they will live, which school they will go to, what beliefs they will have, where they will worship and which moral code they will adopt.”
“In democracies, the ballot box is undoubtedly indispensable. But democracy is not a regime that is limited to the casting of votes from election to election. It is a lifestyle. In a democratic law-based state, the political regime knows that, irrespective of its parliamentary majority, it is bound by the rule of law. Those who implement the rules of law always look through a libertarian window. For, in a democratic law-based state, liberty is the rule and the restricting of liberty the exception.”
“What is sacred in the modern notion of the state is not the state, but the people the state is obliged to serve. Those who would consecrate the state actually wish to consecrate themselves and declare themselves to be inviolable. Those who think in this manner do not perceive of the services that they render to the people as being a duty, but a favour. Those who would have us believe that they are doing a favour in serving the people become angry at individuals expressing opposing thoughts and groups staging protests and marches, and accuse the people of ingratitude.”
“Political regimes are most certainly not obliged to take pleasure from mass organisations’ criticism, but, in pluralistic democracies, political regimes are obliged to take on board such criticism and greet it with tolerance. In pluralistic democracies, political regimes do not target political ideas that do not please them; do not attempt to destroy democratic mass organisations based on their parliamentary majorities; they accept them as being an integral part of democracy and live alongside them. They thus do not saw off the branch of democracy onto which they have climbed.”
“Essentially pluralistic democracy is the only model of true democracy. Even if majoritarian regimes declare themselves to be democratic, there is no liberty in such orders; just favours by the political regime.”
http://www.cumhuriyet.com.tr/?hn=438864&kn=7&ka=4&kb=7