The justices of the Constitutional Court are full of surprises: While expecting a verdict on the "headscarf issue," we never anticipated that it would usurp Parliament's right to legislate. Many political observers who also know how the court works put their chips on four different verdicts, but the Constitutional Court has chosen the fifth alternative: An all-out showdown with the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) and Parliament. All powers are on the lookout, searching for ways on how to invade the others' sphere of influence -- not only in Turkey but elsewhere, too. However, the latest attempt by the Constitutional Court to solidify its power by issuing a verdict is the most extreme. I don't think even the US Supreme Court justices were so adamant and stubborn and had little respect for the "doctrine of the separation of powers" when Franklin Delano Roosevelt was introducing his New Deal. Our Constitution, adopted in 1982, gives clear mandates to all three powers and never lets any of them exceed its prescribed sphere. In the previous Constitution, that of 1961, for example, the rights of the judiciary were designed in such a way that legislators felt they could not pass a law or amend the Constitution without first getting the Constitutional Court's approval. The 1982 Constitution rectified this imbalance for the benefit of Parliament. We know this because of the limited rights exercised by the Constitutional Court. The court, according to the 1982 Constitution, cannot take up constitutional amendments and pass judgments on their content; it can only look at them to determine whether they have any defects in form -- i.e., whether they received enough votes at the ballot box. The surprising verdict on the headscarf issue has surpassed the limits of the Constitutional Court's sphere as envisioned in the 1982 Constitution. The judges have decided to look at the content of the two amendments recently enacted by Parliament and announced them null and void on the grounds that they are the guardians of the republic and the amendments were against the secular character of the republic. In reality, the two articles (10 and 42) which were amended by Parliament have nothing to do with secularism. The first amendment aims at reinstating the rights of individuals before the bureaucracy, stating that all citizens deserve equal treatment by public servants. The second is to remind all and sundry that the right to study at institutions of higher learning is the inalienable right of every citizen and that it can only be limited by law. How can these two amendments be regarded as being against the secular character of the republic? When the Republican People's Party (CHP) turned to the Constitutional Court to annul these two amendments, even party leaders didn't anticipate the outcome to be so harsh and clear-cut. Of course they were hopeful that the Constitutional Court would step in and insist on the legality of the headscarf ban, but they never thought the court would go so far as to usurp some of the legislature's sphere. Some observers believe that with this verdict Parliament has no legislative power whatsoever. The separation of powers is in shambles, with the judiciary being placed above all other powers. With a verdict on the future of the AK Party pending in front of the same justices, the Constitutional Court will be in a position to determine who rules the country and how they rule. For some, with these two cases, the headscarf issue and the closure of the AK Party, we have only one power in Turkey: the power of the judges. The Constitutional Court's 11 justices are the most powerful people and are above the existing political system of governance. When Roosevelt was met with strong resistance from Supreme Court justices over his liberal policies, he counterattacked by reminding them of their power's limitations. Following their insistence on resisting and sending back some laws adopted by Congress, Roosevelt took up some decisive steps to change the structure of the court. He suggested a law which would enable him to appoint five new justices in addition to the existing nine, "a persistent infusion of new blood," he said. The AK Party does not seem to have any clear idea how to reclaim the legislature's right to amend the Constitution as it is prescribed by the 1982 Constitution. Speaker of Parliament Köksal Toptan, after a visit by Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, decided to defend the body he presides over, but only suggested reintroducing a bicameral system by creating a senate. The two amendments annulled by the Constitutional Court weren't a product of the AK Party alone; in fact, the AK Party's seats in Parliament are not enough to pass constitutional amendments. Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) and Democratic Society Party (DTP) deputies also voted for the amendments. If passing amendments about the headscarf deserves punishment, as the chief prosecutor of the Supreme Court of Appeals claims in his indictment against the AK Party, then the MHP is also a culprit. If the AK Party is going to be closed because of its stance on the headscarf issue, the MHP also rests on shaky ground. Normally, a court verdict settles disagreements; the Constitutional Court's verdict on the two amendments has created new and more serious disagreements. I told you at the beginning: The Constitutional Court justices are full of surprises.

Todayszaman