It seems that a crucial point about December 17 – 25 is escaping people’s attention.

Were the suspended prosecutors and police chiefs really related with the latter phases of this operation? Had they taken this part into account? In other words, if the objective were derived and Erdoğan were overthrown, the government was overthrown and the part was handed over to “safe hands”, what would have been the outcome of this operation then?

We can easily guess the answer by paying attention to a couple critical matters.

The first one is, of course, the previous similar examples. During the 1960 Coup D’état, there were plenty of accusations of corruption towards the deceased Menderes, Polatkan and Zorlu. Hürriyet Newspaper was again playing the lead role in this matter. Here, the following are a couple of headlines from Hürriyet:

When Hasan Polatkan, who stood trial with the coup benefactors and was executed on September 16, 1961 without even giving his statement because the there was no time for it, and other politicians were revealed to be innocent later on, their reputations were returned.

As for the other critical information, they are related to the December 17-25 operation.

Probably no one was expecting for a persuasive judicial process with evidences, which had been acquired through illegal wiretappings without even entering UYAP, by keeping them away from the superiors, and maybe even created with the copy-paste method.

Then it means that they must have trusted in two things. The first one was; they must’ve thought that the control of the court and bureaucracy would be in their control anyhow, and that they could manipulate the process as they had done in cases like Balyoz, Hanefi Avcı and OdaTV.

On the other hand, the parallel members didn’t see any harm in acting careless, since they knew that they had strong allies and that they had already leaked into the government, parties, media and NGOs.

After all, the possibility of failure wasn’t even  000.1 percent.

However, in my opinion, the more important fact was that nothing would’ve changed after Erdoğan was overthrown and the reputations were returned. The intention had been derived after all. So to say, what changed when Menderes, Zorlu and Polatkan were found innocent!

Now we can understand the real intention of the “Let the judiciary do its job” chorus and behind the December 17-25 incidents. As its stated in the attestation, which Etyen Mahçupyan mentioned in his article yesterday, everyone, including the people, who were directly involved in the matter, knew that what we had experienced was a coup d’état.

The people who bend reality, know it the best, as well. This is a requirement for them to do their job to its fullest…

There is also no change in the perspective related with the Supreme Court discussion. The objective was to create vindication pressure on the government, pulling the strings at the Supreme Court; thus, preventing the formation of a willpower, which will conduct its first public constitution in the June 7th elections, complete the Resolution Process with success and carry on the fight against the parallel structure with determination, at the TBMM (Grand National Assembly of Turkey).

If there is one thing not included in this struggle, that would be the corruption claims’ desire to find the substantial reality. Moreover, with a process, which had started with such a wormy objective and method, no objective/substantial reality can be reached. This is a matter of coup d’état and political struggle. This is the reality best known by the people, who try to present this as a judicial/corruption matter.

Besides, on the matter of these investigations, the prosecution given judgment of nolle prosequi by saying, “The evidences, which form a base to this investigation, are gathered via illegal methods, oppression of laws and going around them; thus, they cannot be used in court”.

Despite this, AK Party’s permission to the establishment of a commission at the Parliament could be explained by the established pressure.

What is necessary to be comprehended here are not self-practices of the judiciary, but rather, that we are arguing over a political struggle. Right now, the latest news is that the Constitutional Court had refused to discuss the application about the threshold because of lack of venue.

Of course, we have insane questions in our minds. What’s the effect of the reaction from the public opinion, media and politics on the decision, but more importantly, the fact that the four ex-ministers won’t be going to the Supreme Court after the commission’s decision?

Can you say this “has no effect”?

Then, no need for confusion. By re-designing the state itself, and making a new communal agreement, we will open a new page. We will redefine our common ethics.

Until that day, it’s better to be cautious and realistic.