The rule of law is the honor of the state

In every system, whether in a bourgeois society or a socialist society, law is theoretically a superstructure institution of the system; however, its duty is not to protect the political cadre, but to safeguard the survival of the state and the well-being of the people within a general administration and justice system based on social consensus. It is for this reason that the legal system and its institutions must be distant from and independent of all social pressure and influential institutions and circles, primarily the political power, as well as capital, religious institutions, etc.

The rapidly changing landscape in Turkey does not present the image of a democratic country. Naturally, a political cadre receives criticism for a series of its actions, and it should; these criticisms can even be exceptionally stinging. Criticisms directed at political leaders from various circles should be perceived as public demands, and actions should be taken accordingly. In most cases, criticisms of political decisions are in the interest of the general public, and even the politicians themselves. For example, the press played a major role in the United States' defeat and withdrawal from the Vietnam War. The criticisms that arose during that period and the process that unfolded may very well have angered the administrators of the time, but the work done by the press was beneficial not only for humanity but for the American people and even the U.S. political administration itself.

The alignment and/or silencing of the press, just as with the law, is in fact the silencing of the entire society. Politics is not an activity that can be kept secret like family life. When political decisions do not comply with the law, like a Leviathan, they may involve actions related to the use of public funds, putting the lives and property of the public at risk, and placing the rights of future generations under pressure and control. In this respect, regardless of the excuse, all actions must be in accordance with the law and open to the public. Even if any decision or action is taken in the name of national interest, it cannot be the case that it cannot be explained to the public in the name of national interest, because all actions should be openly discussed in parliament, which represents the people, and a conclusion should only be reached through a parliamentary decision. The phrase used for imprisoned journalists, "they are not doing journalism, they are committing crimes," lacks logic. Such a decision cannot be made by a political body, but only by judicial authorities. It may be stated in laws that crimes can be or are committed through the press, but such laws may be laws in a formal sense, yet they cannot find a place in the social conscience and cannot be seen as laws in a material sense. As is seen quite often, in some instances of incorrect and biased journalism where certain individuals or events are targeted in violation of law and morality, it is clear that such journalism is a crime. But for some reason, journalism conducted like an informant for political service is not seen as a crime, while on the other hand, those who report the truth, when the news touches certain places, cause alarm in certain circles and can be treated as criminals because of their profession. Viewed in this light, it seems that many journalists who are currently imprisoned have practiced real journalism, have not sought refuge with anyone, and have only seen themselves as responsible for reflecting the truth to the public. If there were incorrect or untrue news in the publications, this situation would be corrected through the judiciary, and thus the public would learn the truth and what is right. But silencing the concerned parties without doing this is clear evidence that the news is absolutely true and that its announcement touches sensitive nerves.

Turkey must normalize. Trust in the judiciary simultaneously ensures trust in politics; shaken trust in the judiciary also shakes politics, damages the country's reputation, and undermines the sense of trust among people. No matter how hard one works, the lifespan of a political cadre is limited and cannot be extended too much, as it is contrary to dialectics. However, the lifespans of the country and its peoples are far above that of politics. In the end, victory and success belong to those with a longer lifespan, and this situation is in accordance with dialectics.

Law is not a superstructure institution of the political cadre or the party, but of the political system. At the point where this is overlooked, a crime against the law is committed! The independence of the law is the guarantee of the politicians themselves. Law dependent on politics may appear to serve politics at first, but in the long run, this is not the case; law dependent on politics is not on the side of politics as is thought. Because, when the lawlessness of certain periods is exposed to society in historical records, past politicians are not remembered with kindness.