The main argument used to justify the decision towards building nuclear plants in Turkey is the rapid increase in energy/electricity demand. According to the data of the Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources, between 1990 and 2008, the annual average rate of increase in primary energy demand was realized as 4.3%.1 Since the planned nuclear reactors can generate only electricity, it would be more appropriate to look at the increase in electricity consumption of Turkey.

The climate change brought about by men, which was scientifically uncovered with long-term observations, today manifests itself in the events we have encountered in the short run. The global record heat and flood-related disasters that took place in a number of countries in 2010 are some global examples of this. The melting of the ice cap in Greenland on 8-12, July, 2012 by 97 percent gave us a more vivid idea of what the speed of climate change in its current stage could be. The whirlwinds that happened in Turkey in the winter months, the flooding that took place in a number of towns and regions in the summer months, with Samsun ranking first, as well the heat waves are a few examples.

The main subject of this article is providing information regarding the KCK cases and assisting in the determination and comprehensibleness of the legal situation The goal is not seeking an answer to the question of how the Kurdish problem can be resolved. Instead, it is to reflect upon the KCK cases and the criminal justice system in conjunction with the accusations put forth in the indictments.

Turkey has begun the process of drafting a new constitution. A new constitution means redefining the state and society and remaking basic political choices. Therefore, preparing a constitution is a turning point for a nation. Constitutions have two main functions: to restrict political power by rule of law and to safeguard fundamental rights and liberties. Democracies carry the risk of a political party acquiring power through elections then shifting to an undemocratic, oppressive regime by wielding power to advance its own political aims. Constitutions offer structural and institutional arrangements to lessen this risk.

The acute problems in the Caucasus, the Balkans and the Middle East pressured Turkey to continue playing its regional harmonizing role between its strategic allies and neighbours. The challenge of managing these tensions also appeared to put Davutoglu’s foreign policy formulations and above mentioned principles to the test. The changing nature of the economic and political set-up forced a reconciliation of domestic issues with foreign affairs; in other words, international relations that are now used to meet Turkey’s economic, democratic, social and religious ambitions as defined according to the perceptions of the ruling cadre within the AKP of the “existing realities of the world” setting.

This clear-cut position adopted by Turkey against the Assad government is, before all else, a choice made by Prime Minister Erdogan. Over time, one can see clearly that Erdogan initially believed he could put his cozy relationship with Assad to use in order to find a way out of the crisis; to create dialogue between the regime and the opposition; and project Turkey, an emerging power, as a regional leader capable of overcoming crises without Western intervention.

In the new model “health and well-being is a subject to be solved on one’s own.” Meanwhile, the responsibility of the state is just to create a system for the “diagnosis and treatment” of the emerging illnesses and to monitor and control the institutions under that system.

The relentless conflict between the “appointed” and “elected” that has left its mark on the last 10 years seems to favour the latter, but it is not over yet. After the military had to withdraw and was substituted by the judiciary, constitutional amendments, including essential reforms were introduced. These amendments targeting the “impartiality” of the judiciary are criticized with the claim that they impair the independence of the courts.

While the sovereign rulers in this area have applied cruelty to its full extent, they preferred that people forget, have them remain without memories through their policies. However, when a person is made to forget even one meaningful day in his/her life, her/his soul would be hurt. The powerful rulers prefer a policy to make people forget at the expense of hurting people’s souls, and consequently its history. These moments are not forgotten. It is thought that they are forgotten, but it is only in a deep dream state at the bottom of our soul, as long as it is not healed, it merely waits for the time to explode.

As the debate about nuclear energy is framed alongside a discourse of “rights of nations”, I would propose to shift the notion in the debate towards the “interest of societies and people”. This might open ways to end the impasse in the discussion and to overcome the mental deadlock.