The declaration is quite clear: If the case were within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Appeals rather than that of the Constitutional Court, the AK Party would have been closed down right away and many of its leaders banned from politics immediately. The declaration's text is harsher and more damning than the indictment prepared by the chief prosecutor.

With a declaration at hand, what should the government -- or the public, for that matter -- do? It isn't a list of demands so that we as the public can fulfill them or the government can carry them out. The chief judges are not asking anything of us but are declaring what they believe. They believe secularism in Turkey is under threat, the AK Party government is the focus of anti-secular activities and whoever criticizes the chief prosecutor for his indictment is a traitor.

The judges of the Constitutional Court are also human. They are influenced by what they read and hear. When the time comes for them to hand down a verdict on the party closure issue, they will be under the influence of the Supreme Court of Appeals declaration. In the declaration, the chief judges criticize those who write and say things which could influence the decision of the Constitutional Court judges, but the same chief judges who have signed the declaration do exactly what they condemn. The mere existence of the declaration is an attempt to influence the decision of the Constitutional Court.

It is almost a universal convention for judges to not speak with tongues but through verdicts. They never utter any prejudices which could compromise their decisions. When a judge let his/her opinion on an issue at hand known outside the courtroom, s/he loses his/her right to preside over the case.

There are many cases in the Supreme Court of Appeals concerning the very same issues that would come within the boundaries of the opinions taken up by the chief judges in their public declaration. I am not sure if the decision of a court headed by a chief judge who has put his signature on the joint declaration would be accepted as without prejudice if the case somehow concerns the AK Party or secularism in Turkey.

What has prompted the chief judges to issue such a declaration -- without precedent not only in Turkey but also in the history of the modern judicial system?

Two answers come to mind: First, some spokespersons of the European Union have criticized the party closure case and have extended their criticisms to our judicial system. Second, the president of the Constitutional Court gave his opinion of the party closure case to a journalist in a matter of fact fashion, saying that the decision will improve the standard of democracy in our country, reinforce the secular pillar of the republic and boost the respect for the rule of law.

The chief judges of the Supreme Court of Appeals may have interpreted these two developments as against their expectations in the party closure case. By issuing a declaration, the chief judges may have aimed to change the situation to their favor.

As far as I gather from what happened afterwards, they were successful in their attempt. No new counter-argument from either the European Union or the United States and no clarification or rebuttal from the Constitutional Court.

The US has kept mum all along; on rare occasions when their spokesmen did utter a word on the matter, they do so in such a fashion that one felt they were afraid of tilting the balance to the side of civilian rulers.

The European Union, on the contrary, was vocal in its criticism, but has also remained silent following the declaration.

The Constitutional Court may have raised its institutional voice against intervention in its judicial scope by the declaration, but none of its members have done anything to let us know that they are ill at ease.

No, none whatsoever.

The Republican People's Party (CHP), on its part, shares the sensitivities of the chief judges. The usual suspects in the Turkish media who have little respect for democracy and democratic institutions have also supported the declaration.

The judiciary must certainly be independent. The Turkish judiciary is as independent as any in the world. It is too independent, in fact, to my liking. But the judiciary must also be unbiased. Is the Turkish judiciary unbiased? If you read the declaration carefully, the answer stares you in the face. The declaration itself claims that the judiciary must be biased if a case concerns secularism or other pillars of the republic and calls for the Constitutional Court to make its decision accordingly.