In a memorial article in Cumhuriyet, which had been published following the death of Mustafa Ekmekçi, while a writer friend of his, whose name I cannot remember, was talking about their common memories, he had quoted the story of the Turkey Labor Party’s closing.

The following day the decision regarding the case, which had been held in the Constitutional Court, was going to be released, and seven of the eleven members had gathered in a friend’s house in Bahçelievler.

On that day, they had promised, that these social democrat, left-wing members will be giving a “no” vote in the shutting down case tomorrow.

If I’m not mistaken, the writer was narrating in his article in question that Ekmekçi was also present in that meeting and on the same day, he had rushed to meet the writer with great eagerness in order to give him the good news.

On the following day, the court had gathered and announced the decision: TIP (Turkey Labor Party) had been closed with the consent of eleven members….

Afterwards, it became impossible to find answers for the questions: How did the struggle between the left and right in Turkey evolve? ; If TIP maintained its political life, then would the ideological struggle have turned into an armed struggle? ; Then how would our political adventure have proceeded?

How had it become possible for all of the members, who had promised to each other a day before the Constitutional Court, to make a decision against their promise?

This anecdote is one of the most striking incidents that reminds me that the decisions of the Constitutional Court are always political.

Afterwards, many coups, extraordinary periods, had passed…. In all of their decisions, the Constitutional Court had made decisions appropriate to the duty, mission given to them. Even when shutting down the parties; even when they had signed the 367 strangeness; even while cancelling the decision released by the signatures of 411 politicians that allows headscarf in universities….

The best example, which shows us how history flows and the meaning of the Constitutional Court’s decisions, is the people who are wearing headscarves in the universities and in the public.

After this liberty, neither a smallest incident occurred nor had Turkey rolled towards the “Middle Age darkness”, on the contrary to what’s been claimed by the objectors, nor it had turned into something against people.

Nothing happened.

Life is flowing in its natural flow; the women, girls who desires to, are covering their heads, while the ones who don’t want to, don’t.

They are studying, working side by side. They were already living side by side when those decisions were being cancelled and Turkey was turned upside down; together they had falsified everyone who had claimed that they couldn’t work or study while living side by side.

For a long time we were thinking that the Constitutional Court had finally stopped being one of the tools of the siege, which lines up against the parliament that is formed with elections, rather than only being a judicial institution.

We assumed that its decisions would again be political, as they always have been, however this wouldn’t be against the natural flow of life.

Now, once again, we are looking doubtfully at the court.

The case is not whether there should be thresholds or not; the case is the doubt that, at the verge of an election, a project is being carried out with the claim that it’s against the Constitution.

Countless experts, politicians and lawyers are emphasizing that there are many obstacles - because of time, limit, duty, authority, previous decisions and case laws - in front of the Constitutional Court in making a decision related with the election threshold.

They are defending the fact that the Constitutional Court’s foundation law and the definition and limits in the Constitution are ruling this out.

As for the contrary opinion; based on the 152nd clause of the Constitution, it is stating that the Constitutional Court is also a court; and like other courts, they can submit an appeal.

Was there any decision in this direction previously? No.

This will be a first in this area.

Recently, the Constitutional Court has been breaking new grounds.

Nobody should have any objection to legal precedents and new perspectives. However, isn’t it necessary for the attempts, which violate the legal boundaries like interfering with politics of using a right that belongs to the Parliament, to stop at some point?

However, we are not at that phase yet. First of all, in the committee, which will be formed by the gathering of the two departments of the Court, the issue of whether the individual application will be transmitted to the Plenary Committee will be resolved.

At the end of all these phases, if an election, where the thresholds are removed, is experienced, then it is not possible to make out today what meaning this will hold for the integrity of Turkey independently from the parties.

I hope that the Constitutional Court’s members will not leave us face to face with a chaos, like the one caused by the people who had shut TIP by means of violating the law and the Constitution.

I’m not talking about the election itself, or who will gain what, or whether the single party rulership continues or not; I’m talking about seeing a couple steps ahead.

Maybe what looks like small political calculations, personal passions or wrong comments, are actually parts of the big project that designs our whole future.