A significant election was held in Turkey on Oct. 12. Ten out of the 22 members of the Supreme Board of Judges and Prosecutors (HSYK), an administrative institution regulating appointments, promotions, discipline and record issues of judges and prosecutors, were elected by 14,000 judges and prosecutors. After the results were announced, a great majority of the country that focused on the elections for months took a deep breath. Some of our Western fellows might find the first paragraph strange, so I would like to explain the context first. The HSYK is an institution that controls the fate of the judicial system in Turkey. Though it is an administrative institution, it has direct influence on civil, criminal and administrative jurisdiction mechanisms. For instance, the HSYK deals with complaints filed against judges and prosecutors. If they have lost impartiality, the files issued by aggrieved citizens might not be reviewed. The same mechanism could also oppress judges and prosecutors trying to do their job due to political reasons. Because of this, it is possible to blot the copybooks of many judges and prosecutors and favor those deserving penalty. The institution was composed of seven members until the constitutional reform made after Sept. 12, 2010. The minister of justice was the chairman of the institution and the undersecretary was an ad hoc member. Two of the remaining members were elected from the Council of State while the other three were elected from the Supreme Court. This system was truly self-enclosed and controlled by bureaucratic and military dominance. With the reforms made in 2010, the number of members on the HSYK reached 22. Apart from the minister of justice and undersecretary, the president was to select four members, the Supreme Court three, Council of State two and the Justice Academy was to select one member. The remaining 10 members – three from administrative and seven from civil and criminal jurisdictions – were to be determined by an election held among the 14,000 judges and prosecutors in the country. The method of this election was also important. Having the judges and prosecutors vote for only one candidate was introduced with the 2010 reform, but it was brought to the Constitutional Court and cancelled with the objection the main opposition Republican People's Party (CHP). So the previous method in which a voter uses as many votes as the number of people to be elected – in our case this number is 10 – was preserved. This brings superiority to the groups that can act collectively, and this is exactly what happened. A group affiliated with the Gülen Movement, which is estimated to be composed of 4,000 people among 14,000 judges and prosecutors, seized control of the HSYK through this method. So a major risk was posed against those that are not members of this movement or object to their demands. Meanwhile, unexpected developments were experienced during the Dec. 17 and Dec. 25 corruption operations. It turned out that the government was subjected to a judicial coup attempt in the guise of corruption operations. The election held on Oct. 12 was crucial in this regard. Unity in the Justice Platform (YBP), which aims at ending this type of dominance and is also supported by the Ministry of Justice, took part in the election with a list that embraced all segments of society and did not allow the superiority of an ideological or sectarian group over the others. The Gülenists tried to suppress the members by relying on its dominance in the HSYK. However, the YBP clearly expressed the importance of the principle of pluralism, and the judges and prosecutors that are tired of the oppression of the Gülenist group cast their votes without minding the threats. As a result, a pluralist structure that will not give any privilege to a specific group has been introduced. That was the critical aspect of the HSYK elections. The legislative body, with the principle of the separation of powers, avoided collapsing at the last moment under its own efforts.