The brutal murder of Özgecan was like a hard slap in our face reminding us of violence against women.

It was in this context that I mentioned the concepts of “human security” and “human security policies” yesterday.

Repeating it wouldn’t go amiss…

The concept of human security is defined as “freedom from fear,” “freedom from want,” and “the right to live in dignity.”

There is no doubt that violence is the focal point of this concept.

The “concern” and “range of insecurity” that arises due to violence experienced in daily life extends from clashes generated due to ethnic and political reasons, to state-perpetrated violence, to violence attributed to the flouting of tradition…

Actually, there can be no doubt that the key word in the concept of human security is human.

The evolution of this concept that was coined in the 1990s is not independent of the state-centered security policy hype. The point of separation is the restriction of the basic rights and freedoms of an individual in the face of state security and national security policies.

In this way human security can be defined as a concept that is a reaction to a balance where institutions are favored over humans. In one aspect it expresses the desire to generate a shift in the security hierarchy where the focus moves from the state to the human, and from the national to the individual.

For example “the right to live in dignity”…

Could it point to a framework that differs from that of the supremacy of law?

If the raison d’état, or national security concerns, or “intractable demands,” curtail the maneuvering space of humans, the legal system they trust, their freedom of movement, their freedom of thought and freedom of expression; will the resulting equation have any relation to democracy?

Turkey experiences such situations frequently in regard to many issues, including the issue of women. A constant cloud of impending danger and need to mobilize hangs over our heads. The language of threat and danger that was espoused during the period of military tutelage and the security-based approach it created has now been substituted with something similar.

We are a country that enters every general election on the back of polarizing winds based on perceptions of threat and danger, and deem them to be pitched battles and major showdowns. (A practice engaged in by all sides and against each other). A political culture based on secret agendas, conspiracies, and perceived external threats is growing at an incredible rate.

A clear example of this is the citing of occasional violations of the rule of law in the fight (both necessary and important) against the Fethullah Gülen-led community as a security-related necessity…

Another example is the security-centered approach as seen in the domestic security bill, which came back on the agenda as part of the Kurdish issue…

This bill has a far more significant and eye-catching aspect apart from criminalizing the use of Molotov cocktails, clubs and weapons.

This aspect is the complete breakdown of any balance between administrative measures and legal oversight.

It grants civilian authorities and security chiefs the right to detain people based on reasonable doubt without any legal oversight and judicial involvement.

What is even worse is defining this authority as essential for “the peace and safety of society.”

No problem or policy can justify such a regulation. Such a regulation will either erode the principles of the rule of law in the future or become a tool that aids such erosion.

Wasn’t the most critical aspect behind the scrapping of the EMSAYA Protocol (Protocol on Security, Public Order and Assistance Units) in 2010 to strip the military of the authority to intervene in societal events without explicit orders in times of non-emergency?

In that instance the military’s civilian authority was being negated.

Now the judiciary is being negated.

The symbolic significance of this alone is destructive.

Moreover, Turkey is a country with a poor record in this regard. The prevalence of military or civilian security-minded people dominating and directing jurists has been a historical problem for us.

This means that the formula should be reversed, and the hierarchy that exists between humans and the state needs to be reversed.

This should be attempted at the very least.