My fellow beachcombers have also been invited by the Hellenic Foundation for European and Foreign Policy (ELIAMEP) and rather than rub suntan lotion on one another's backs, we have been discussing the great issues besetting our respective region from the Balkans to the Black Sea, from climate change to (you guessed it) Turkey-EU-US relations. Even so, there is little temptation to turn up the ring volume on the mobile phones, and it seems something of a betrayal to log on to the Internet to discover the latest on the demonstrations in Tehran or on the latest state of play in the uneasy truce between the government and its chief of general staff.All this is by way of adding conviction to my determination today not to write about the day-to-day bumps in Turkey's political road, but to look across the Aegean from Olympian heights. When someone from Moldova, Macedonia or Ukraine asks, “What's going on in Turkey?” they are asking about the big picture. My answer is that Turkey is still grinding its way noisily through the gears, trying to shift into a process of irreversible reform. The issue on which it is currently stalled is that of political balance. It is currently trying to abide by a notion of equilibrium established by the 1982 Constitution, which was penned under conditions of martial law.
The grand model of modern constitutions is that penned by the founders of the United States in 1776 and reflects an obsession with protecting any tier of institution of government from the over-accumulation of power. The judiciary is carefully separated from the legislative and the executive while the central government is prevented from over-interfering in the efforts of the constituent states, and local authorities from taking responsibility for their own affairs. The grand model of the unwritten constitution is that of England in which the separation of powers and the defense of individual liberties is the result of pragmatic compromise and respect for public opinion. Let me not glamorize the degree to how well these models work. Rather, let me move on to the Turkish example.
The 1982 Constitution, too, embodies a suspicion of the over-accumulation of power. It doesn't entirely trust the political class and allows for the liberty of its citizens as long as they adhere to both well-defined patterns of behavior and a rigid canon of political orthodoxy. It embodies the concern that the 1961Constituition was corrupted by the politicization of the civil service and insists on the rigid supervision of institutions of civil society -- including universities -- which, in the European Union that Turkey aspires to join, are more properly self-regulating or autonomous. To cite the most famous example, it does not trust the motives of young women who want to cover their head.
The answer would appear to be to liberalize Turkish laws, amend or transform the Constitution in order to make it conform to best practices of democracy and defense of civil liberties. The most powerful barrier to that reform would be appear to be the Turkish military, who have defined for themselves a role not just of defending the nation against an external threat but of “majoritarianism” and the ability of a populist government to lead the nation toward archaic social practices and in a direction no modern state should go. And while to give the military so large a role might seem itself archaic, there is clearly a substantial number of well-intentioned citizens who fear the consequences of a violent jolt should the military be removed from the see-saw. It would be to replace a bad and ultimately unworkable sense of constitutional equilibrium with no balance at all.
The solution Turkey decided upon when it sat down to become a candidate nation for the European Union was to remove an unaccountable overseer of political balance in favor of the acquis communautaire. It would look to Brussels for a blueprint to guarantee individual rights and the rule of law. For reasons to do with both Turkish and European politics, this strategy is now in peril. So Turkey should be debating genuine constitutional reform. Perhaps there should be a second legislative chamber or deputies more directly accountable to defined constituencies. What it does not need is putschists or demagogues, and what it does need is to act now.
