Those who pull the trigger on behalf of the state

This is because they are in the grip of the paranoia that the country will be divided and they tend to believe that the security forces are doing everything they can to preserve the country’s integrity.

The cases against Ergenekon -- a clandestine organization nested within the state trying to overthrow or manipulate the democratically elected government -- the Sledgehammer (Balyoz) coup plan and similar lawsuits, as well as news stories on what happens behind the scenes of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party’s (PKK) attacks on military outposts have undermined these public perceptions to some extent.

Still, the proverb “There’s no smoke without fire” applies to those who were killed in the clashes.

For instance, the case of Uğur Kaymaz, who was killed together with his father in Mardin’s Kızıltepe district in 2004, was like this.

The case against the police officers who were charged with killing 12-year-old Uğur Kaymaz with 13 bullets was transferred to Eskişehir and eventually covered up. In Turkey, the judicial system and laws are built upon the primary duty of protecting public officials.

As seen in the case of the murder of Hrant Dink, the system does not allow public officials who committed an offense on behalf of the state to be tried, and those who were allowed to be litigated are protected by the judiciary.

In this country, it is an honor to pull the trigger on behalf of the state. The case of Uğur Kaymaz proved once again why the proponents of this mentality are not happy with the country’s bid to become a full member of the European Union.

On seeing the application concerning the death of Kaymaz, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) requested Turkey’s defense.

Concerning the questions asked by the Strasbourg court, the Sabah daily ran the headline “Questions that penetrate like bullets.” Indeed, these questions are simple ones that even a law faculty student can ask.

That our judicial authorities did not ask these questions in the first place and the Supreme Court of Appeals upheld the local court’s decision without asking these questions is clear proof of the misery of the Turkish judicial system. This is a mindset that trivializes individuals vis-à-vis the state and justifies and glorifies murder and torture if done on behalf of the state.

And, unfortunately, this mindset still dominates the judiciary. It will require colossal efforts to change this mindset of glorifying the state as a mother and to protect the rights of individuals.

Unfortunately, we see that the ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party) has stopped pursuing such efforts after the referendum of Sept. 12, 2010.

With the exhaustion resulting from its being in office for more than 10 years and deceived by its overwhelming power, the AK Party seems to be focused not on changing the existing system but on transferring it to the generations it raised.

The aloofness between Turkey and the EU is attributable not only to the West’s biased attitudes but also to Ankara’s tendency to sever ties after getting what it needed. This mentality cares about who holds the power rather than how that power should be held, and it is impossible for it to take Turkey to the democratic level the country deserves.

Yet, they are supposed to stop concentrating on the demands of conservative groups and pave the way for the overall democratization of the entire society.

We are missing this opportunity.

Indeed, conservative groups have gone beyond the democratic mentality of the AK Party.

The current deadlock over the Kurdish issue, the return to former pro-state policies with respect to the Cyprus issue and the arrogance stemming from high popular support are clear signs of the AK Party’s failing reformist identity.