The Justice and Development Party (AK Party) government long ago shelved its draft constitution prepared by prominent scholars of constitutional law with liberal leanings. It did so out of fear that the attempt to introduce a new constitution following the July 2007 elections prompted the closure case against it brought to the Constitutional Court in March 2008. Having survived the closure case by a narrow margin, the AK Party learned its lesson and dropped the idea of a brand new constitution from its agenda. What it can afford today is to go for a piecemeal amendment in the current Constitution, maintaining its very bureaucratic and authoritarian spirit.
Yet even to this the main opposition parties have declared their opposition. From “normal” political parties one would expect support for any attempt that would broaden the political realm vis-a-vis the bureaucratic dominance. In the package worked on in Parliament, two main amendments are expected: one concerning the closure of political parties and the other amendment concerning judicial reform. The Venice criteria for the closure of political parties are likely to be introduced, making the closure of political parties ever more difficult. Among the expected amendments is the laying down of the constitutional bases of judicial reform that have long been sought by the European Union. Even such minor changes to the system breed incredible resistance from circles that are not happy with a more accountable, democratic and transparent Turkey. There is a conservative block that consists of not only the military and the judiciary, but also includes nationalist political parties, namely the Republican People’s Party (CHP) and the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP).
They even defend the indefensible: the Constitution of the military regime. It was a Constitution imposed on the people in a period in which Turkey was shaken by the terror of a military regime. During these years the CHP was closed down by a National Security Council (MGK) decree. The then-leader of the CHP, Bülent Ecevit, was first sent into internal exile and was then tried by a military court. The leader of the MHP, Alparslan Türkeş, was not even as lucky as Bülent Ecevit. He was arrested, put in prison and was tried with prosecutors demanding a life sentence. In the end he was not convicted but spent five years in prison.
This was the justice of the military regime. What do these political parties, whose leaders and members suffered so much at the hands of the military regime, find worthy of defending in the Constitution of the military regime? It was a regime that detained more than 500,000 men and women; thousands of them were tortured, hundreds disappeared and 45 were executed. It was a regime that closed down all trade unions and thousands of associations.
This is a Constitution made by such a regime. Yes, people approved it because they wanted the military to go immediately. They knew that without approving the Constitution they offered, the military junta would have an excuse to remain in power. Yes, people voted for the Constitution, but they voted against the political party that was formed by an ex-general blessed by the junta.
The pro-status quo nature of the CHP and the MHP policies has been proven once more. Deniz Baykal has already announced that they will take any constitutional amendment to the Constitutional Court. By such policies they make the AK Party appear to be the only reformist party. They accuse this party of being an Islamist one. Let us assume that this is the case: isn’t it ironic, then, that Turkey’s only reformers are Islamists?
What has happened to the pro-modernization and Westernization secularists? Have they all settled for preserving an oriental authoritarian model in this age, opposing political reforms?
It seems that those secularists have not changed their mind about democracy, open society and the free market; they have always been in favor of an oriental despotic regime called Kemalism. A new constitution requires some degree of social and political consensus. Kemalists and nationalists are unlikely to agree upon the democratic rules of the game. The bureaucratic center and its social and political extensions are not willing to give up their privileges.
Moreover, there can be no consensus on lesser democracy, fewer liberties and weaker rule of law. If a new constitution or a substantial amendment to the current one is ever going to be introduced, this will not be in agreement with the Kemalists and nationalists, but in defiance of this pro-status quo bloc.
