Neoliberal politikalar bağlamında Türkiye ağır ceza mahkemelerinde görevli Cumhuriyet savcıları

This thesis is based on the institutional changes in the judicial system through the process of neoliberalization in Turkey. In this respect we aimed to capture, with reference to the metamorphosis of attitudes and judicial practices, to which extent the bureaucratic model of judicial administration has internalized (or internalizing) the various agents of neoliberal ideology. For this purpose, first of all, we highlighted the historical roots of the judicial administration which is in stage of transformation. Based on historical data, we can consider that all along the history of Turkey, the judicial institutions follow an institutional program in which they reproduce the values out of the world, they execute all these within the sanctuaries exempted from the daily reality of the outside world, then they spread their values through professionals and finally they adopt their own methods to take part in the socialization process of individuals in order to provide functionality to the institution. While the institutional program of the Ottoman Empire is shaped by Islamic values and customary laws practiced by kadis; the institutional program of the Republic rests on the modern law and bureaucratic administration initiated by the Kemalist values. However, we can see that the transition from one to another does not imply a rupture, on the contrary it testifies to a metamorphosis wherein two different models of the justice administration are juxtaposed in Turkey: the bureaucratic model and the neoliberal model. The bureaucratic model is based on the normative order provided by the state, the priority of the institution, the hierarchy of relationships, the ideal definitions made through regulations, the visibility of power. However the neoliberal model is based on the competition by mimicking the market, the flexibility in relationships, the focus on the interests of individuals, the efficiency, the effectiveness and the rapidity of judicial activities. In connection with our main hypothesis, we conducted semi-structured interviews with twenty state prosecutors working in various functions at the prosecutor's office in Istanbul. Furthermore, we attended ten proceedings in criminal court. We selected four different courthouses located in Istanbul in order to achieve a certain degree of representativeness in this research. The choice of interviewees was performed rather randomly. During the fieldwork, we obtained some data on the professional identity of prosecutors, relations of power established in the judiciary institution and their judicial practices. Regarding the reproduction of the bureaucratic model, the results of our research show in the first place that the resistance strategies of prosecutors towards the neoliberal model of justice are formed in relation with the bureaucratic model within the framework of conformist perception. The process of conformism of prosecutors is composed by three factors: identification with the state through the profession of attorney, reproduction of normativism and internalization of patriarchy during the execution of the profession. The ascending economic mobility and social xiii these difficulties obstruct the staging of the trial and they prevent the prosecutors from playing their part for the defendants. Thus, the fragmentation of tasks leads the way to the slowdown and the dysfunction of the criminal proceedings. Each judicial officer, responsible for one part of the chain, transfers his/her responsibility to another one and no one has a detailed knowledge of the case. In addition, the workload and the performance concerns of prosecutors guide them in practice to delegate key tasks to other agents. Thus, the influence of the police during the interrogation process and the influence of the prosecutor during the jurisdiction process prevent them from carrying out the judicial activity in an efficient and fair manner. The effort for delegating the various tasks results in a collective irresponsibility in the judicial institution that could be named as the judiciary dysfunction. As the most important principals are shaped by the increased and accelerated production, the structure of the criminal chain evolves day by day towards the production chain. The reformulation of task division according to neoliberal values transforms judicial practices; the prosecutors adapt these practices in order to stay in the game and improve their professional performance. Another neoliberal inflection point could be discussed in connection with the process of isolation of prosecutors through their professional identity. This process is composed on the one hand by the control of social ties by adapting the rules of the judiciary institution and on the other hand by the working conditions prompting the uprooting of social ties. All prosecutors report their discontentment and their sacrifices about working conditions at some point in their careers. Hence, the isolation process of prosecutors indicates a breaking point with strict social links provided by the bureaucratic administration of the judicial institution. To conclude, we can say that the state prosecutors resist to neoliberal transformations across the ideological aspects that give them authority within the judiciary. Contrarily, they consciously or unconsciously get adapted to professional aspects that provide them the benefits on the functioning of the criminal chain or the difficulties of their profession. Therefore, the emergence of neoliberal values in the administration of justice produces a metamorphosis against the rules of the game. That is why; every judicial officer is in the process for (re)positioning themselves against changes in order to maximize their interest.