The Law Remains the Same, So What Has Changed?

Written by Gökhan Turhan…

I still remember something said by an official who headed the Legal Affairs and Investigation Branch of the police force during my years in law enforcement. Before 2016, he used to explain that provincial police chiefs and governors were not personally responsible for the signatures they placed on certain documents, describing those signatures as merely formal representations of their offices.

Years have passed, and the picture confronting the public today appears very different. Some mayors are now being arrested in investigations involving allegations of tender-related corruption. In some of these cases, public debate has focused on whether the mayors actually signed the documents at the center of the allegations.

So, what has changed between then and now?

Has the law changed? The issue is not that simple. Legislation can, of course, change over time. But my real concern is the apparent inconsistency in how the law is enforced, how individual responsibility is established, and whether everyone is treated equally before justice.

How can a signature that was once described as merely formal become part of a very different debate today? By what standards is the legal responsibility of a public official determined? Under what circumstances can someone who did not sign a document nevertheless be held responsible? Conversely, under what conditions might someone who did sign it escape liability?

These questions deserve answers that do not change according to the individuals involved.

Naturally, the absence of a signature does not, by itself, eliminate legal responsibility. Equally, holding a particular office does not automatically make someone guilty of a crime. Every case must be assessed on its own evidence, the limits of the individual’s authority, and the applicable legal principles. Guilt must be established through due process and the rule of law, not assumed from allegations alone.

And that brings us to the fundamental question: Is the law being applied equally to everyone?

Lives Changed Overnight

The year 2016 marked a turning point that left deep scars on Türkiye’s recent history.

Following the attempted coup on July 15, a state of emergency was declared, and extensive purges took place across public institutions. Thousands of judges and prosecutors, police officers, military personnel, teachers, and healthcare workers lost their positions. Among those affected were individuals who had served in senior positions within the judiciary.

Overnight, the lives of thousands of people changed. Families were torn apart, careers came to an abrupt end, and lives built through years of hard work were turned upside down. Many were forced to spend years fighting to reclaim their rights.

The legal, administrative, and social consequences of that period remain subjects of debate. Yet, from my perspective, the central issue is not simply who was dismissed. It is also how the boundaries of the law were protected during extraordinary circumstances and whether individual rights remained adequately safeguarded.

The rule of law is tested most severely in exceptional times. It must be capable of standing firm not only against the powerful but also in defense of those who are vulnerable in the face of power.

When the Scales of Justice Lose Their Balance

When people begin to believe that legal standards change according to individuals, positions, or the political climate of the day, public confidence inevitably suffers.

If the signatures of certain public officials were once described as merely representative, while today questions of liability arise in connection with files that those accused reportedly did not sign, the apparent contradiction deserves a clear explanation.

The issue is not about automatically clearing any mayor or public official of wrongdoing, nor is it about declaring anyone guilty in advance. The real issue is whether the country has a legal system that is consistent, predictable, and applicable to everyone on equal terms.

Allegations of irregularities in public tenders must certainly be investigated. Protecting public funds, ensuring accountability, and combating corruption are essential responsibilities of a state governed by the rule of law. But investigations themselves must also comply with the principles of that same legal order.

Evidence must be concrete. Responsibility must be established on an individual basis. The right to a defense must be protected, and pretrial detention must not become a punishment in itself. No one should be considered untouchable because of their position, and no one should be presumed guilty simply because of the office they hold.

The scales of justice must never tilt according to who stands before them.

The Story of the Yellow Ox

There is an old tale about a yellow ox.

A herd is asked to surrender one of its oxen. The others remain silent, believing that sacrificing one animal will preserve the peace and protect the rest. One gives way, then another. Each time, they reassure themselves that there is no problem as long as they are left alone.

Eventually, only they remain.

Whenever I think about this story, I find myself questioning the price of remaining silent in the face of injustice. Those who ignored the loss of other people’s rights in the past may have believed that the same fate would never reach their own doorstep. Yet legal protection is not a privilege reserved for a particular group. It is a safeguard that belongs to everyone.

Those who refuse to defend another person’s rights today may find that no one is left to defend their own tomorrow.

Of course, establishing a direct legal connection between past events and today’s investigations requires concrete evidence. Every case has its own circumstances. Nevertheless, there is a common lesson to be drawn from these developments: the rule of law is not a right to be remembered only when we ourselves need it.

Justice must be defended without first asking who has suffered the injustice. It is not enough to demand fairness for ourselves; justice becomes meaningful when we demand it for others as well.

So, What Has Changed?

The law existed yesterday, and it exists today. The state existed yesterday, and it exists today. Public offices, powers, and responsibilities remain part of the legal order.

So, what has changed?

Perhaps what has changed is not so much the wording of the law as the public perception of how it is applied. Perhaps what has changed is the extent to which people feel secure when they stand before the justice system. Or perhaps the real shift is that events once dismissed as someone else’s problem have now entered the lives and concerns of much broader sections of society.

These questions cannot be answered with slogans. They require examination of individual cases, reasoned judicial decisions, transparent proceedings, and an independent judiciary.

I do not want anyone to stand above the law. Nor do I want anyone to be crushed beneath its weight. What I want is simple: everyone must be equal before the law.

Those who remained silent when others suffered injustice yesterday may find themselves facing the same questions today. This is not about revenge. It is about understanding that the rule of law must be universal.

Even so, let us remain optimistic. We are still breathing. We can still ask questions, examine what is happening, and argue for a fairer system.

The sun rose yesterday, and it rises today. But the fact that the sun rises every morning does not mean that nothing has changed.

Sometimes, a great deal changes in a country’s collective memory. Institutions change. People change. Lives change. Public confidence in justice changes. And yet one question remains:

If the law is the same, why does justice not feel the same to everyone?

It is easy to say that nothing will ever be the same again. The real question is what will change from this point forward. My hope is that change will strengthen the rule of law rather than fear, justice rather than revenge, and equality rather than privilege.

Because one day, what everyone will need is not a powerful figure to protect them, but a legal system that guarantees their rights.