Dr. İbrahim Kaboğlu, a promi­nent jurist has been put on the list of the aca­d­e­mics dis­charged by the infa­mous decree of Feb­ru­ary 7th.

Dr. İbrahim Kaboğlu isn’t just any­body in Turk­ish con­sti­tu­tion­al law…His name is among the first to be quot­ed when the notion of « Con­sti­tu­tion » comes up. He teach­es con­sti­tu­tion­al law at Mar­mara Uni­ver­si­ty, he has trained thou­sands of jurists in Turkey. A human rights defendor and a sci­en­tist, he has also taught in a num­ber of pres­ti­gious uni­ver­si­ties across the world.

He has just been dis­missed by decree n° 686 of Feb­ru­ary 7th 2017, like 329 oth­er aca­d­e­mics. By this decree, sci­en­tists and researchers have been torn away from their work, their uni­ver­si­ty, their stu­dents, but they have also lost their senior­i­ty, their pen­sion, which for Ibrahim rep­re­sents forty-three years of ener­gy and pub­lic service.

The inter­view con­duct­ed by Hilal Köse of the news­pa­per Cumhuriyet, clear­ly brings to light the feel­ing of revolt these purges raise in the vic­tims. As Hilal points out : “İbrahim Kaboğlu’s sad­ness is even greater than his anger.”

Of course, the point of view expressed in this inter­view is that of a jurist defend­ing a “just State”, a State “in the ser­vice of all”, a uni­ver­sal jus­tice that the “Turk­ish Repub­lic” could have embod­ied some day… a creed we don’t share at Kedis­tan since it does not take into account the fact that jus­tice also depends on dom­i­na­tion and bal­ances of pow­er, at all times and on all occa­sions. Attempt­ing to oppose to this a sim­ple “uni­ver­sal­i­ty of human rights”, while not ques­tion­ing the very foun­da­tions of all these “injus­tices” is a task for Sisy­phus, while also pre­tend­ing that Turkey, con­struct­ed against the mosa­ic of its peo­ples can achieve such a uni­ver­sal­i­ty. It is remark­able that after more than a year of war dur­ing which Erdo­gan has achieved the feat of keep­ing his oppo­si­tion dis­unit­ed because con­front­ed by the poi­son of anti-Kur­dish kemal­ism, we see at last a mobi­liza­tion from those now feel­ing the full brunt of the attack. Although İbrahim Kaboğlu signed the peti­tion of Uni­ver­si­ty work­ers for peace, after the failed putsch he defend­ed the neces­si­ty for the Kur­dish move­ment to join into the the great nation­al uni­ty move­ment for democ­ra­cy, thus align­ing him­self to what was then the posi­tion of the CHP.

First they came for…” you know the rest. Hence­forth, every­one is in the same sink­ing boat in front of the regime. Let us hope that the Feb­ru­ary 7th decree will prove to be the uni­ver­sal det­o­na­tor, both for a NO at the ref­er­en­dum and, most of all, against a pseu­do “nation­al uni­ty” that thwarts all pos­si­ble con­ver­gence in the opposition.


Hilal – What are your feel­ings at this time ?

İbrahim – This kind of prac­tice gives the impres­sion that the « Ottoman-Turk­ish » advances nev­er exist­ed, that the Ana­to­lian lands have nev­er known the notions of Law and of Human Rights. Con­se­quent­ly, it is impos­si­ble for me to describe with words what I feel. More­over, as an indi­vid­ual who works in the area of human rights, becom­ing the wit­ness of the prac­tices put forth in these decrees, I feel as if we have almost reached the brink of « eras­ing the his­tor­i­cal and col­lec­tive mem­o­ry ». This can also be seen as an insult against the society’s achieve­ment and the accu­mu­la­tion of col­lec­tive knowl­edge in Turkey.

Hilal – To this day, you have trained thou­sands of jurists… How do you inter­pret this…against a name such as yours ? Some crit­i­cized this even with­in the AKP…

İbrahim – First of all, it is hurt­ful, degrad­ing. If those using these pro­ce­dures took aim at their inter­locu­tors or, more pre­cise­ly, rid­dled the « ennemy » with bul­lets, it wouldn’t be as impres­sive. Think, you have as a jurist, sev­er­al decades of accu­mu­lat­ed expe­ri­ences, you have strug­gled to teach notions of law and jus­tice to future jurists… You dis­cov­er that, in the course of one night, your name has been added to a « pack of law-decrees », cre­at­ed for « the ter­ror­ists who attempt­ed a coup. ». You may be sure your heart will go on beat­ing, upon awak­en­ing the next morn­ing, if only you have a chance to re-ini­tial­ize your mem­o­ry and your past before going to bed…

Anticonstitutional…

Hilal – In your opin­ion, is there a pos­si­bil­i­ty that this dis­missal can be quashed by some author­i­ty or oth­er ? What would hap­pen if you appealed to the Court, what would be the result ?

İbrahim – Before any­thing else, the fact that this non-legal deci­sion should not be tak­en, or should be annulled is even more impor­tant than see­ing it quashed. The terms used are unacceptable.“If there is error, it can be rec­ti­fied, if there is injus­tice, it can be repaired ». These kinds of com­ments mean that the authors of these pro­ce­dures doubt the legal­i­ty of their own oper­a­tions and the basis on which they rest. Yet, in a State where the Rule of Law applies, each pro­ce­dure must rest on a legal basis, even in a state of emer­gency. In a state of emer­gency the bal­ance between lib­er­ty and author­i­ty may be undone to the advan­tage of author­i­tiy, but the admin­is­tra­tion under the state of emer­gency is also a Law-gov­erned regime, with lim­its as to place, domain and time, and open to judi­cia­ry control.

These points also hold for decrees pro­nounced in the state of emer­gency. The frame­work in terms of con­tent and appli­ca­tion is found in arti­cles 120, 121 and 15 of the con­sti­tu­tion. Each decree is pro­mul­gat­ed by the Cab­i­net of Min­is­ters meet­ing under the pres­i­den­cy of the Pres­i­dent of the Repub­lic. Despite this clear con­sti­tu­tion­al rule, there is no match between the dates of pub­li­ca­tion of these decrees and the agen­da of Cab­i­net meet­ings. For exam­ple, the decree of Feb­ru­ary 7th is based on a meet­ing that would have tak­en place on Jan­u­ary 2nd. This leaves the fol­low­ing impres­sion : the Coun­cil of Min­is­ters meets once, under the pres­i­den­cy of the Pres­i­dent of the Repub­lic. Then, in the days and weeks that fol­low, decrees are pro­mul­gat­ed. This pro­ce­dure is clear­ly uncon­sti­tu­tion­al. It rais­es seri­ous sus­pi­cions of a shift of author­i­ty, from the polit­i­cal to the admin­is­tra­tive bureau­cra­cy… Such decrees under the state of emer­gency are clear­ly uncon­sti­tu­tion­al and con­trary to the Euro­pean Con­ven­tion of Human Rights. Also, the prac­tice of suc­ces­sive amend­ments to the laws is a method that makes legal recours­es par­tic­u­lar­ly dif­fi­cult and inef­fi­cient, there­fore it is prohibitory…

The Imam may express himself, but not I

Hilal – Is it pos­si­ble that you are sub­ject­ed to this ordeal because you said « One can­not write a Con­sti­tu­tion in a state of emer­gency » ? The process of mod­i­fi­ca­tion to the con­sti­tu­tion gal­lops on, the date of the ref­er­en­dum has been declared (April 16 2017). What can be the result, in your opinion ?

İbrahim – The opin­ion « One can­not write a Con­sti­tu­tion in a state of emer­gency »  finds con­fir­ma­tion with each pass­ing day . If my name was added to the « putsch-ter­ror­ism decree » because of this opin­ion, the legit­i­ma­cy of the process of con­sti­tu­tion­al mod­i­fi­ca­tion becomes even more debat­able. To this are added the con­tex­tu­al con­tra­dic­tions. A uni­ver­si­ty direc­tor, a pre­fect, a gov­er­nor, an imam may express their opin­ion on the con­sti­tu­tion­al change, but spe­cial­ists in con­sti­tu­tion­al law can­not. Per­son­al­ly, I have nev­er wit­nessed a « process to mod­i­fy a con­sti­tu­tion with­out the con­sti­tu­tion­al­ists » as botched as this one. On tele­vi­sion screens that remind us of the « pink series » in pre­vi­ous South Amer­i­can times, how many con­sti­tu­tion­al­ists find a seat in the so-called « debates on the con­sti­tu­tion » ? This whole sit­u­a­tion denies the « con­sti­tu­tion­al right to infor­ma­tion ». Con­se­quent­ly, the results of the ref­er­en­dum will have to be con­sid­ered in light of this environment.

Hilal – What will hap­pen if the Yes wins ?

İbrahim – The ways and means used for the Yes and which pre­vent form­ing a pub­lic opin­ion on the con­sti­tu­tion bring wor­ri­some ele­ments on the prac­tices to which we will tes­ti­fy after an even­tu­al Yes… This is why it will not be easy to qual­i­fy it as a « new con­sti­tu­tion­al order » even if it car­ries a more recent date.

A pollution of constitutional information

Hilal – What are the rea­sons for this return to pre­vi­ous practices ?

İbrahim – The most pro­found rup­ture in Ottoman-Turk­ish his­to­ry. But there is no jus­ti­fi­ca­tion that legit­imizes this. We can rapid­ly men­tion three reasons.

The first: the con­tra­dic­tions in the AKP between the advances of the par­lia­men­tary regime and Ottoman-Turk­ish his­to­ry ( par­tic­u­lar­ly polit­i­cal and con­sti­tu­tion­al history).

The sec­ond: The con­tra­dic­tion between the 14-year peri­od of AKP pow­er and the the­sis claim­ing that the AKP would now lift Turkey to the doors of « advanced democracy ».

The third: The con­tra­dic­tion between the AKP and its own elec­toral base : The reports and projects pre­pared by the orga­ni­za­tions close to the Party’s base are rather favor­able to a pro-regime par­lia­men­tary regime. They are thus unre­lat­ed to the con­tent of the con­sti­tu­tion­al revi­sion project vot­ed by the Nation­al Assembly.

Hilal – How do you con­sid­er the AKP’s Yes campaign ?

İbrahim – It is dif­fi­cult to con­sid­er it as the AKP Party’s cam­paign. It is a State cam­paign, yes, a gen­er­al mobi­liza­tion for the Yes… In such an envi­ron­ment, it is impos­si­ble for free will to express itself. Because what dom­i­nates is not the « right to con­sti­tu­tion­al infor­ma­tion »  but « a pol­lu­tion of con­sti­tu­tion­al information. »

I can’t find the legal term

Hilal – We had dis­cussed this dur­ing our pre­vi­ous exchange : When the uni­ver­si­ty cir­cles in France insist­ed you take up res­i­dence in Paris, you said « No »…What will hap­pen to your lec­tures at the Sorbonne ?

İbrahim – I began my lec­tures at Sor­bonne Nou­velle (Paris 3) last week as guest lec­tur­er for three months. We orga­nized my lec­tures in Paris over four weeks in Feb­ru­ary, March and April so that I could also con­tin­ue my lec­tures at Mar­mara Uni­ver­si­ty.  I com­plet­ed my first week, came home, and three days lat­er, with the addi­tion of my name to the « ter­ror­ist orga­ni­za­tion decree » not only has my work of forty-three years been ter­mi­nat­ed but my pass­port has also been revoked. This means that, if this decree total­ly unre­lat­ed to law is not rec­ti­fied, I will not be able to return to Paris, nor to pur­sue my teach­ing there. In sum­ma­ry, the Pres­i­dent of the Repub­lic, the Prime Min­is­ter and the min­is­ters who signed this decree are prob­a­bly not aware that my name was added to the « putsch  decree », but this gen­er­ates con­se­quences that deprive me of my nation­al and inter­na­tion­al rights. I can find no legal term to qual­i­fy this penalty.

Trans­la­tion by Renée Lucie Bourges.
iknowiknowiknowblog.wordpress.com
French ver­sion >  Le Dr. İbrahim Kaboğlu licen­cié et privé de Sorbonne

Image à la une :  İbrahim Kaboğlu, pho­to Nur Banu Kocaaslan / Diken

La ver­sion en français

 


Traductions & rédaction par Kedistan. | Vous pouvez utiliser, partager les articles et les traductions de Kedistan en précisant la source et en ajoutant un lien afin de respecter le travail des auteur(e)s et traductrices/teurs. Merci.
Kedistan’ın tüm yayınlarını, yazar ve çevirmenlerin emeğine saygı göstererek, kaynak ve link vererek paylaşabilirisiniz. Teşekkürler.
Kerema xwe dema hun nivîsên Kedistanê parve dikin, ji bo rêzgirtina maf û keda nivîskar û wergêr, lînk û navê malperê wek çavkanî diyar bikin. Spas
KEDISTAN on EmailKEDISTAN on FacebookKEDISTAN on TwitterKEDISTAN on Youtube
KEDISTAN
Le petit mag­a­zine qui ne se laisse pas caress­er dans le sens du poil.