Parliament was founded three-and-a-half years before the official declaration of the republic, portrayed by some as an element opposed to democracy. There is actually nothing surprising about this because the democratic experience of the Turkish nation began with the two constitutional monarchies declared toward the end of the Ottoman era. Therefore the Turkish nation -- before declaring the republic -- founding an institution that represents the people's will 88 years ago while it was still fighting for survival is very natural in regard to the historical course of events. This early step should be understood as the founders' open expression of respect for democracy and the national will, since this preference was at the same time tantamount to a declaration of intention suggesting that even while switching to a new and revolutionary order, they were putting the will of the people first by making everything reliant on their will in the name of democracy. Even though the following years saw radical aberrations from this declared intention and the appearance of a vanguard revolutionist understanding detached from the people as Jacobin practices cast a blight on the new order's quality of democratic representation, we should accept the fact that the first established institution was the Turkish Parliament, as a clear manifestation of a willingness to make democracy and the national will the dominant factors in the administration.
This first Parliament, founded on the people's representational power, was also a "veteran Parliament," running the fight for independence against the powers occupying the country. It was also extremely potent in that it had assumed the authority of executing laws and founded a "parliamentary government" in itself. As the sole place of manifestation of the national will, this Parliament was undoubtedly "the apple of the eye" of liberation, independence, sovereignty and the democratic administration. That's why Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the founder of the republic, declared Parliament's inauguration day as "National Sovereignty Day" and gave it as a present to children, making it a national holiday.
What sort of ground do we stand on today in regard to the national sovereignty declared exactly 88 years ago? What do we understand from the phrase "national sovereignty"? I should note with all honesty that our current situation is not at all hope-inspiring. Firstly, a certain segment of society understands only "independence" from the domination of foreign powers when national sovereignty is in question. If you don't believe me, check out the remarks by proponents of that fictional ideology called "neo-nationalism." And also ask them what they understand from national sovereignty. I assure you that they will completely disregard the principle that sovereignty rests unconditionally with the nation and only tell you in a very unequivocal manner that sovereignty means -- an undefined -- "independence" from foreign influences.
As a matter of fact, national sovereignty doesn't only mean being against the domination of foreign powers. It also means being against any sort of domestic and foreign interventions that would cast a shadow on the people's sovereignty. What is meant by "sovereignty rests unconditionally with the nation" is that the people's will prevails over the country's administration. Well, to what extent does the national will own national sovereignty? To what extent is the national will dominant in the country's administration? To make it more specific, to what extent does national sovereignty rest unconditionally with the nation? To what extent has the Turkish nation been able to establish its sovereignty, with the history of their struggle for democracy dating to a past more distant than 88 years ago?
Without a doubt, a remarkable accumulation of experience has been acquired on the road to making democracy and national sovereignty the dominant elements in Turkey. However today we unfortunately cannot speak of a perfected democracy or say that sovereignty is not reliant on the conditions imposed by an oligarchic minority. As a result, Turkey is still a country where all sorts of plots are generated and staged to impinge on the people's will and where a political minority -- accompanied by the judiciary, bureaucracy and the military -- hatches all sorts of plots to impede the powers of a government determined by the results of elections. To what extent can we speak of the will of the people and sovereignty in a country where the legislative power of Parliament, the sole representative of the people's will, is being hampered and where its legal and constitutional amendments are disregarded by courts and other bureaucratic institutions? What does saying that "sovereignty unconditionally belongs to the nation" -- in a system where bureaucratic, military and judicial institutions continually encroach upon the government, which has been formed and authorized by Parliament itself -- amount to other than a twisting of the truth?
To what extent can a system be called a democracy when it is dominated by those who, whenever the ballot box produces a clear winner respectful of people's values, humiliate voters by calling them "hoi polloi," "wayward," "jarheads" and "those who scratch their bellies," although they have been ostensibly playing the democracy game for decades? Can we ever say that such a system is based on the people's will? To what extent is it possible to say that "sovereignty rests unconditionally with the nation" in this order wherein some invite a military coup in disguise of holding "national sovereignty rallies" in which they insult people's democratic choices and, what's more, where they open a closure case on utterly nonsensical grounds against two parties in Parliament representing 53 percent of the population by lending their ears to these provocateurs?
Not to beat around the bush any longer, let's speak the truth outright: The phrase that most befits today's system in terms of sovereignty is in no way "sovereignty rests unconditionally with the nation." Just the opposite, it is "sovereignty rests unconditionally with the military, bureaucrats, judges and their political extension, the Jacobin CHP mindset." So, I celebrate their sovereignty festival!
