When the law bends to power Türkiye’s crisis of judicial credibility
 |
| Photo Eren Arıcı on Pexels |
The current state of Türkiye’s judiciary, particularly after the critical turning points of 2010 and 2016, has undergone a profound transformation. While judicial independence is constitutionally guaranteed under Article 138, the practical application of this principle has become one of the most contentious issues in the country’s modern political history. The growing influence of the executive branch over judicial appointments and disciplinary proceedings has led to a widening gap between legal assurances and on-the-ground realities.
The structural transformation of the judiciary
The restructuring of the Council of Judges and Prosecutors (HSK) has been a focal point of criticism. Changes in the appointment mechanisms and the composition of the council have raised concerns that the judiciary is increasingly staffed with cadres aligned with the ruling administration. This shift is perceived by many observers as eroding the institutional autonomy of the courts, creating a judiciary that is not only responsive to the executive but also integral to its strategy of consolidating power.
This structural transformation has given rise to what many describe as the "field reality" a widespread perception that legal decisions, especially in politically sensitive cases, are shaped more by anticipated political outcomes than by objective legal evidence. This perception is not limited to political opposition; it is shared by segments of the legal community, academia, and international watchdogs, all of whom have documented instances of due process violations and politically motivated prosecutions.
The polarized interpretation of justice
The most challenging aspect of this debate is its deeply polarized nature. The government maintains that all judicial decisions are made independently and based on concrete evidence, particularly in cases related to terrorism and organized crime. Conversely, opposition groups and civil society organizations contend that these very same cases are often used as instruments to silence dissent and marginalize political rivals.
This polarization means that the same court ruling can be interpreted in completely opposite ways depending on one’s political stance. Such a fragmented understanding of justice undermines the foundational principle that the law should be a neutral arbiter in society, not a weapon to be wielded in partisan conflict.
International perspective and compliance
The domestic controversies have significant international repercussions. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has issued multiple rulings against Türkiye, citing violations of freedom of expression and the right to a fair trial in prominent cases, such as those of Osman Kavala and Ahmet Altan. These rulings highlight an increasing dissonance between Türkiye’s domestic legal practices and its international human rights obligations. Furthermore, the continuous criticism from the Venice Commission and other European bodies underscores the systemic nature of these concerns, placing Türkiye’s judiciary under persistent international scrutiny.
A test of democratic resilience
Türkiye finds itself at a critical juncture. The credibility of its judiciary is not merely a matter of domestic political debate but a crucial factor influencing its international standing and internal stability. The current trajectory marked by executive dominance over judicial appointments, politically charged prosecutions, and international censure poses a fundamental challenge to the rule of law. For Türkiye to navigate this period without long-term damage to its democratic institutions, it will require a genuine and inclusive dialogue among all stakeholders, aimed at rebuilding public trust in the independence, impartiality, and integrity of its judicial system.