Being exempt from responsibility does not mean acting irresponsibly

Being exempt from responsibility does not mean acting irresponsibly

Is there another example in the entire world, I don’t know; but I’m guessing not. A president wants one of his country’s banks to “urgently go bankrupt.”

He makes a statement every two or three days about this, he wants the bank to be seized, he has called the independent government agency in charge of this area “on duty.” 

He told reporters the other day: “There is the process of hitting the bottom. The Banking Regulation and Supervision Agency [BDDK] should make a decision, otherwise it will be responsible. There are rules in banking. I will be following up [on this].”

I assume what he meant by the “process of hitting the bottom” should be the activities that occurred following  the bank’s shares being reopened to trading at the stock exchange after it had been suspended. He does not say, of course, that it was his own statements that triggered those movements.

He says the BDDK will be responsible, but it should also be said that the BDDK has adopted a much more responsible stance than he has.

The BDDK bureaucrats know that the sinking of a bank does not only mean the sinking of a bank. They know that if they are engaged in an unjust seizure process, other than the harm they would inflict on economy, they can face heavy consequences because of their actions.

But the president is exempt from responsibility; he does not care about any of that.

If he had cared, then he would have been keen on complying with the relevant clauses of the laws on banking.

The existence of the president’s immunity of responsibility does not give him the authority to violate the laws of the state he is heading; he is at least expected to act “morally” responsible.

Let me also state that there is no such exemption from responsibility for all of those newspapers and televisions that publish and broadcast under the president’s instructions, trying to intentionally bankrupt the bank.

The law on banking definitely bans the publication of those stories that harm banks’ reputations, wealth and fame.  Those who commit this crime are to be punished with one year to three years of imprisonment.

We have laws in our country; there are prosecutors to monitor whether these laws are respected, but again all of these can happen!

Really, we do have a unique and unprecedented “world leader” in power.

Do they really want to be in the clear?

There are four former Cabinet ministers who are accused of corruption and bribery. A parliamentary investigation commission has been set up for them. If they are found guilty, they have an opportunity to be tried at the Supreme Court and be acquitted.

There was a story about one of these ministers Muammer Güler the other day. He said he has lost about 15 kilos since the graft operations; he was furious at the state for having bugged them. We have not heard from others, but I am sure Zafer Çağlayan, Egemen Bağış and Erdoğan Bayraktar are all the same.

Here, our real problem is not how a Cabinet minister was eavesdropped on, but how were these ministers involved in such things?

The conversations of these ministers with businessman Reza Zarrab and his men, millions of dollars received in suit bags, shoe boxes, chocolate trays, watches and jewelry as gifts, etc.? All of these remain as a reality in front of our eyes… They will remain so until there is a hearing at the Supreme Court.

Instead of complaining, isn’t it more correct if they encourage the work of the committee and be tried as soon as possible so that they can be acquitted?

Or do they know what the result will be and they are blocking the work of the investigation commission?