Can a man of law do politics?

Another shameful page was added to our history when the head of the Turkish Bar Association, Metin Feyzioğlu, delivered an unreasonably long speech on the occasion of the 146th anniversary of the State Council on Saturday.

Just a few weeks ago, Haşim Kılıç, president of the Constitutional Court, also delivered an outrageous speech which sparked a lot of criticism and was in the same ballpark as that of Feyzioğlu. It is worthy of consideration that he intermixed his long-winded juridical text with political messages, openly challenging the government and taking up a position concerning recent political events in Turkey. Anyone who listened to Feyzioğlu with their eyes closed, especially from the middle point of the speech, most likely would have mistaken him for an opposition leader.

How can the situation of a legal expert who makes his point clearly about the closure of Taksim Square to protests on May Day be explained? What about his political statement on the National Intelligence Agency (MİT) law? Was it a Freudian slip? What are his interpretations of social media other than interfering in politics? He said, "It is not worth falling from grace to ban social media. The person who starts up in anger sits down with a loss. And this is our common loss."

There are further examples to be enumerated. However, the most striking aspect of his speech, which words fail to explain, was that he touched on the illegal reporting of a highlevel secret security meeting held at the Foreign Ministry that was leaked onto the Internet as an act of espionage. Fortunately, he suggested those eavesdroppers should be picked up. Then he elaborated on the context of that report and attempted to question Turkish foreign policy through the record, which uses it as a means of manipulation. Is the Turkish Bar Association a competent authority to determine what matches the principle of "peace at home, peace in the world"? I was also an attendee at the meeting organized by a highlevel statesman. Furthermore, it was said this 13-minute record disclosed to the press was an abridged version of a much longer preliminary meeting of 59 minutes.

Although the state became one against an operation that openly poses a threat to its security, Feyzioğlu may have failed to realize that he challenged the state instead of the AK Party and Erdoğan.

With this sentimental state of his mind, Feyzioğlu seems to have forgotten to behave in line with political decorum. At a congress where the host's speech was limited to half an hour, how can we account for a guest dragging out his own speech for one hour with the exhilaration of a political message?

After all, Turkey is a country where these sorts of speeches can be addressed without any refrain. If you really aspire to politics, lay down your judicial office and get involved in politics. But, I am afraid one cannot do politics in a judicial costume.

Well, what may be the reason for his intemperate statements? There are many reasons but the most important is the lack of a proper opposition in Turkey. This country needs a qualified opposition that can compete with the power. As long as this political gap is not fulfilled, it will continue to reawaken old reflexes. At one point, Feyzioğlu was proposed for the leadership of the Republican People's Party (CHP) in the lobbies. Apparently, he tested the waters with his speech.