The release of Ekrem Dumanlı was pleasing, and the arrest of Hidayet Karaca was saddening, regardless of the allegations leveled at them… 

Two days ago this is what I had written:

“It is not natural in a democratic country for the executives of a prominent newspaper and television station to be detained, or arrested, on the basis of an investigation that extends to the publication and broadcasting policies of those entities. Furthermore, the manner of the proceedings will overshadow the reasons for initiating the proceedings, if the journalists involved hold opposing views.”

Is it possible though to say that this constitutes “political reality?”

Turkey is dealing with a major problem. It is faced with a structure that is deeply ingrained, and which has infiltrated various levels of the state. A structure that is capable of influencing judicial decisions and even political measures. It is faced with a fabric that abuses its legal authority for illegal purposes and has made it a routine practice to install wiretaps, track people and blackmail them.

This fabric -- by currently hiding behind the veil of an opposition stance, corruption-related dossiers and judicial independence -- makes use of these elements, and thereby results in it representing itself, its structure and it aims through an illegitimate stance.

Shouldn’t the existence of such a situation constitute the fundamental problem faced by us the moment we utter the words democracy and rule of law?

Would it be acceptable if the political leadership, in such a situation, were to acquiesce to the opposition terming this structure as one that is civilian, the flag bearer of the democratic opposition and even its symbolic representative, while ignoring its deadly dimensions, by saying it “represents the opposition, revealed corruption, and as a consequence of these actions is subjected to such proceedings?” 

When an informal fabric is so ingrained and widespread, it becomes inevitable that the fight against it can lead down unexpected paths. Could it not be possible that the raids conducted against the Zaman newspaper and the Samanyolu television station -- not discounting the fact that the entire process involving the detentions and arrests was wrong -- were the result of such a situation?

Aren’t this newspaper and television station included in the community’s (the Fethullah Gülen-led movement) actions involving a planned division of labor with the cooperation of its members in the police force and judiciary? Perhaps, or perhaps not… However, if such a possibility exists, then why should an investigation against them -- conditional on adhering to the terms of democratic awareness -- be a violation of press freedom?

How could an intervention be carried out without resorting to extraordinary measures if the manner in which the informal fabric has embedded itself within the state, the areas it has infiltrated and the type of action it initiates are of an extremely critical nature and depth? For instance, if it exerts control over a significant portion of law enforcement and judicial forces i.e. the two most fundamental and principal tasks of the state. Can every extraordinary measure implemented in such circumstances be construed as a move toward authoritarianism, suppression of the opposition, and silencing the opposition?

This much is clear at least: Such situations (I mean wide-ranging and deeply embedded) result in pushing the system in an authoritarian direction on the basis of extraordinary measures, just as has been witnessed in our situation.

The issue at stake is the finding of ways to repel this pressure without forgetting what lies at the root of the matter, and without turning it into a political instrument and resorting to use it as one.

What matters here is that these extraordinary measures don’t become permanent, and that democratic transparency and the sharing of information continue to exist. What matters is that judicial processes don’t exceed the limits determined by the rule of law. What matters is that the issue is not transformed into a witch hunt, and that such an image is not created.

The political leadership bears a lot of responsibility in this regard.

The deficiencies that exist in this regard are out in the open for all to see: The AK Parti’s (Justice and Development Party) view that this battle is solely related to a power struggle, and its lack of criticism in regard to the period where it had an alliance with the community and the consequences of that action constitute a serious issue.

It was a sign of serious deficiency that it didn’t take the problem to parliament in this form, that it didn’t suggest a democratic action plan by revealing everything -- right down to every detail -- to political parties and the public, its lack of sincerity toward society while explaining its measures regarding the HSYK (Supreme Board of Prosecutors and Judges) and other similar measures, and its reluctance to forego confrontational language and instead engage in public diplomacy.

The corruption-related dossiers are the greatest weakness of the political leadership on this topic. The approach of rejecting outright the corruption-related dossiers, which were brought to the agenda by the community, erodes the plausibility of the political leadership when it comes to this confrontation.

One aspect of these dossiers is clearly linked to a coup attempt. However, the aspect related to corruption is also there right at its center. The AK Parti’s reluctance to focus on its own internal shortcomings leads to even more obfuscating of the issue. 

While this might be the situation when it comes to the ruling party; don’t the opposition parties, opposition segments and opinion leaders have any responsibility in terms of tackling this problem?

How compatible with democratic awareness and democracy demands does ignoring the existing problem prove? How compatible with democratic awareness and democracy demands is it to declare the political leadership’s way of tackling the problem, its shortcomings, and criteria for becoming more authoritarian, as the country’s sole and fundamental problem?

Let’s be honest…