Democracy can be seen as a history of social struggles over the expansion of political rights, freedom and civil or public space. It is the story of the transformation of human wrongs into human rights. In this transformation, opposition parties play an important role in challenging the constraints of the democratization project. Opposition parties have been instrumental in transforming dictatorial, authoritarian or military reigns into effective democracies. Opposition parties are critical in expanding the space for the rule of law, respect for human rights and accountable governance.While opposition parties in contemporary mature democracies play these roles, the situation in Turkey is quite different. This is primarily because the leading “opposition” party, the CHP, is so identified with the protectionist, elitist bureaucracy, the legislature, the judiciary and the army. This identification detaches the CHP from the masses and prevents it from gaining and holding power democratically. It condemns the CHP to remain a weak and aggressive minority party, rather than a democratically constructive opposition.
The latest parliamentary event proves the lack of internal democracy in the CHP. It shows how the bosses within the party compromise the party's key responsibility for consolidating democracy. First, CHP deputies confirmed a legislative amendment. Later, they claimed that they had made a mistake, that they had been caught unawares and even that the wording of the two lines of the amendment was difficult to understand at first sight. But the opposition leader and members had debated the amendment of the legislation vigorously in Parliament and during the Select Committee process. There can be no doubt that the legislation received their careful consideration. It seems clear now that those high up in the party did not like the way their members voted.
It is important for the leading opposition party, the CHP, to develop and become a champion of democracy, human rights and good governance. It needs to supply policies and viable legislation. As they have not done so, the party has been unable to win power for decades. The party needs to engage in a critical internal debate: How can the party recover when it is viewed so unfavorably by much of the public?
For Turkey to boost democratic governance, the rule of law and respect for human rights, effective opposition parties are essential. However, the parties must take lessons from the experiences of constructive opposition within mature democracies. They do not need to reinvent the wheel. They must not repeat the undemocratic errors they have led Turkey into in the past. Otherwise, they will continue to enable the protectionist elite to dominate the political space and monopolize the administration. This will result in “no fundamental change” from the republican despotism experienced in the '40s and '50s.
Party activism should build institutions and shape public politics, policies and laws that impact the rights and welfare of the community. It is important for leaders to keep their ears open to what the public is saying. Several recent surveys, like that of the Turkish Economic and Social Studies Foundation (TESEV), have indicated that the overwhelming majority of the Turkish public does not want any more military coups or plots. Protecting coup planners and makers and backtracking on a constitutional amendment that would enable their prosecution by civilian courts will not do any good for democratization in Turkey or in the CHP itself.
Opposition parties should criticize the ruling party's policies, ideas and programs and offer alternatives. However, they should also recognize and respect the authority of the elected government. This is possible only if the opposition party is committed to the values of tolerance, cooperation and compromise. Democracies recognize that consensus building requires compromise and tolerance. As Mahatma Gandhi argued, “Intolerance is itself a form of violence and an obstacle to the growth of a true democratic spirit.”
Good democratic governance is guaranteed by the separation of powers in a modern state -- the executive, the legislature and the judiciary. The separation of power is designed to build institutions that guard against arbitrary rule via a system of checks and balances. The biggest danger to this separation of power comes from seeking alternatives to these. In the case of Turkey this danger arises from the greed for power and has previously taken form in ideologically motivated military personnel overthrowing the democratically elected government. It is perpetuated by protecting such coup planners and makers from civil prosecution.
The opposition in Turkey should learn that their role is not only to “oppose” by all and any means; they have to learn to play a more constructive role in holding the government to account and causing it to adopt more beneficial, productive and universal projects and proposals.
