Some of the judicial processes like Ergenekon, Balyoz, Kafes, and Oda TV were crucial cases; however, some of the other ones were completely unjustified cases. Accusations about some of the defendants of these crucial cases are important, while some of the other accusations about other defendants were unjustified.

Each of the investigations, which prioritized these cases, had the characteristics of a show.

Mass custodies and mass arrests had formed an image that forestalled these investigations. During the custodies and investigations, the defendants in custody had been executed by the press, and many broadcasts, which claimed that these defendants were dark and guilty, had been aired. All the relevant and irrelevant wiretappings related with these people had been blatantly published in the newspapers. On top of that, news had been made based on the info notes.

Today, Turkey is paying the price of that period.

Paying in quite a few aspects.

     - Even the guilty and dirty detainees of these cases came out of this process by almost being acquitted. The treatment they experienced during the case and investigation process and the existence of unwarranted and innocent prisoners had caused the guilty ones to be forgotten, and passed ahead of the misdemeanor activities.

     - This situation was the result of the activities of the group, which had spread into the judicial system and police force: in other words, the Gülen-led group. This existence and activities pointed at a serious state of becoming authoritative on its own.

    - The precautions, which had been taken against this group, had later on created an oppression of becoming authoritative at the same rate they lost the law and democracy measures…

     - While the belief in the judicial system decreased even more, the precautions, (which don’t always comply with democracy) taken by the political rulership to fight against this secret structure that uses state authorities and is hard to clean, like the HSYK (the Supreme Board of Judges and Prosecutors) legislation which damaged the principle of separation of powers, had created results. The results were the loyalty-based assignments and the jurisdiction staying close to the rulership, which paved the way for a strong perception in this direction.

      - The usage of the corruption files by this informal structure had made the precautions, which had been taken against this structure, look like a covering of the corruptions, and as for the existence of this structure within the judicial system, it had made the precautions taken at the point look like interference in the judicial system. The opponents of the congregation and AK Party had attempted to do politics over this display or by using, or exaggerating some valid situations like “AK Party failing to clamp down the malfunctions within themselves”, which had become evident at this point, and by turning them into a single and essential factor.

In this sense, a weird dilemma came into existence in the country.

The West is unable to understand the “state of internal siege”, which is not frequently encountered in their own story, and the attempt to confront this. Rather, they are being directed to the errors of this attempt and are ignoring what is fundamental. Thus, in the end, they are setting out from a cliché, which reduces the happenings to the oppression of the opposition by the political rulership.

Their own essential values, like the freedom of the press, the field autonomy against politics, and the distance between jurisdiction and politics, are malfunctioning in Turkey, and this is making their short, shortcut and prejudiced readings even easier.

If you add the Syria chaos, and the Erdoğan-based antipathy directed at Ankara’s attitude towards the Egypt coup d’état and Gezi incidents, you can see why the political rulership in Turkey is perceived as the unwanted and absolute authoritative object in the dominant West’s corridors (like the press, the EU and some NGOs).

In democracies, judicial independence, freedom of the press and pluralism are the fundamental criteria. However, the dynamics behind these are also important. When you fail to understand this, you will deliver a judgment with a new orientalist attitude within a global cliché, and thus make historic reading errors.

This is valid both domestically and externally.