The democratic world and martial law

Declaring martial law or a state of emergency and expanding the definition of the crime of "terror," have been suggested as ways to combat terrorism in the country. 

It is not a subject for a referendum in legal terms; but if a referendum is to be held, I am assuming that an absolutely overwhelming majority will accept it. In such a case, a populist demagogy of "the people want it so" can easily be conducted. 

But it would be wrong.

We have to think calmly, make rational analyses on what kind of consequences would the steps yield in the long term and decide accordingly.  

We don't need to go very far in the past to be able to draw lessons from the practices of martial law and declared states of emergencies. Of course, the most determined struggle will be made with military and police power against terror. The struggle done today is a just one and we should support it morally.

However, we have seen that the martial law of the 1980s and the subsequent state of emergency have created a "different administrative style" in that part of the country and the "excessive use of force" has caused an accumulation of reaction in masses and as a result, contributed to creating a base for terror. 

The government, correctly, is now rejecting formulas involving martial law and declaring a state of emergency. 

We should think long and hard about whether it would discourage or encourage terror to make amendments in anti-terror and penal codes and create a similar atmosphere by the way of justice. 

The issue that needs to be seriously debated is this: Will it be discouraging to declare all as "terrorists," arresting and jailing professors, artists, writers alongside bombers and armed terrorists? Or will it mitigate...