Comment by Ivaylo Noizi Tsvetkov:
I sit and wonder: are we moving towards a Turkish Erdogan model in the judicial system? Why do I ask myself? Because in my opinion there is something like today's Erdogan duality of the judicial reality, part of which may be observed in our country as well. Namely: formally and populist Erdogan explains almost every week that his focus is on justice, as his party claims, but in fact many talk about ruthlessly crushing political opponents.
And the even bigger question is: is it possible for today's Bulgarian government to exercise a milder version of the same?
I'm talking about Turkey, think of Bulgaria
I deliberately avoid the "Kotsev" case and "I speak by example", as Hazarta says, but also with an attempt at a helicopter view of the system. The first and most important thing that comes to mind is that as a lawyer, and also an observer of the trials, I deeply believe in the Bulgarian court and most Bulgarian judges. The majority of them are truly worthy magistrates who, to the extent that the legal framework allows them, oppose the distortions in the system. At the same time, thanks to the Third Industrial Revolution, too often "orcs" judge by Feysa instead of judges, and this is debilitating and even disintegrating for the very idea of law. Even more beautifully said in ancient Roman terms (and especially by Sallust in "The Jugurthine War"): When the street interferes with law, it flies out the window.
And why did I start with Turkey: because there are direct parallels, albeit in a relatively different context. I have two examples for you. The first is Istanbul Mayor Ekrem Imamoglu, and the other is Selahattin Demirtaş, the most successful Kurdish leader there. Imamoglu is in the sinister "Silivri" prison, and Demirtaş - in a similar one in Edirne. Here "the fun" is that the second one is about to come out because Erdogan's ultra-nationalist ally Devlet Bahçeli wants to present himself to a different kind of voter as "liberal". In other words: we are observing a hypocrisy of power that says that despite the decade-long war against the Kurds, we prioritize and accept them. This, of course, is a cynical echo of the unstoppable populist wave in today's world, which often crushes meaning and reason at the expense of short-term political dividends. We are seeing it in our country too.
Imamoğlu seems like the perfect victim of the authoritarian and subservient judicial system. He was twice elected mayor of Istanbul by the opposition Republican Party and, for many, the absolute edifying thing was imprisoned by the Erdogan regime - a regime that is quite dually able to produce two realities. One official, the other strictly political. Does this sound like something to you?
And now comes the truly painful problem regarding our reality. Demirtaş will make a deal and get out, but the almost academic question is whether it is possible for politicians to use the judicial system as an instrument? Then comes the old Roman question "quis custodiet ipsos custodes", i.e. who would protect us from the guardians (of the law) themselves? Is it possible that we are already living in a country in which the judicial system confuses - intentionally or not - the criminal with the political? And uses the mainstream media for the necessary accompanying edification? Think a little.
So that the big bad wolf does not win
Let me try a little philosophically, without cognitive strain. The very theory of law, seemingly conveniently incomprehensible even to some prominent magistrates, presumes that everyone is innocent until proven guilty, and not a quick victim of Facebook justice. I.e. it is Pythagorean a priori - we assume that the subject is good, not bad, but when we come across a bad one, the punishment should change him. And you absolutely do not know what a huge "writing" work a judge does to comply with the law (here my Turkish examples from above do not work).
Only one thing would work: for judges in our country to retain a kind of Platonic honesty. If we lose that too, we lose everything, and then, let's say, the wolf from "Nu, pogodi" wins the match against the bunny of justice.
There is also a big communication problem related to the understandable national longing for quick justice. Judges quite rightly do not explain themselves to the media, but in today's digital environment this leads to outrage from the "little man". Ergo, the court is always - in the media and in any way - portrayed as slow and/or corrupt, even if it truly enforces the law. In this sense, it is good not only for general, but also for district courts to clarify cases and cases - unthinkable before, quite conceivable with today's social media explosion.
Let's respect judges and their decisions
The judicial system in our country can work quite normally, as long as checks and balances are observed. The sexiest reform there can be reduced to something relatively simple: the third power in our country cannot and has no way of becoming "Erdogan", i.e. resembling a political and sometimes personal bludgeon of those in power.
Therefore, I will end in a Vazovian way: the judges, the judges, they must be alive. And they must have the courage and honesty to oppose the "Silistra yolu" of political pressure - this executive-government squabble and greasy stew, which at this latitude currently seems inevitable.
I will end with something even more important: our (continental) judicial system, especially in its penal part, cannot and should not be influenced by a revolutionary prerogative. In its current form, however, it is a great-grandson of the Enlightenment understanding of disposition and sanction in the legal norm, which presuppose equality before the law, even if it is bad. Another issue is that, in my opinion, the stupid state follows events and rewrites laws, following various tragic events with great public resonance. But let's respect the judges and their decisions, please: they are the main supporters of the approximate democratic order in which we live.