Amending some articles of the Constitution may be a fresh beginning for a new round of democratic reforms, which is desperately needed to speed up the European Union accession process on the one hand and to consolidate democratization on the other.When debating the content and methodology of constitutional change, we should keep in mind that however limited the amendment package may be, it will be a good thing in terms of Turkey’s democratization. Political reform cannot be thought of without it including a constitutional dimension.
The reason for this is obvious: The Constitution of 1982, introduced by the military administration of the time, is the basis of undemocratic institutions, mechanisms and principles at play in Turkey today. The Constitution has an authoritarian spirit designed to protect the state vis-a-vis individuals. It did not set limits to the power of the state, but to the liberties of individuals -- which goes against the very essence of constitutional movements worldwide. The bureaucracy and the judiciary are appointed as vanguard institutions over the elected representatives of the people. Individual rights are stated but often weakened by phrases of “but” and exceptions. Kemalism is protected as the official ideology of the state. It is a constitution that hijacks sovereignty from the people and entrusts it to the bureaucracy and the judiciary. In short, the very logic and starting point of the 1982 Constitution contradict the principles and institutions of a contemporary liberal democracy.
Therefore, if Turkey needs reforms to broaden its democratic space, this requires constitutional change. In fact this has always been so. Since 1994 all major political reforms came with constitutional amendments. So it is important to have a constitutional change when the process of democratic reforms seems to come to a halt. It may be the beginning of a new spirit for democratic reforms.
The ideal is, of course, to have a brand new constitution. But under the current circumstances, even a modest amendment to the Constitution would be a major achievement.
In this the ruling party cannot count on the support of other political parties inside or outside Parliament. No doubt the opposition parties will regard it as a partisan matter since it will have been initiated by the AK Party. They will portray it as an AK Party project.
Thus, if the amendment package is sent to referendum after a vote of over 330 in Parliament, the referendum will not be about the content of the amended Constitution but a “yes” or a “no” for the AK Party. Thus, it will turn into a plebiscite for the AK Party government.
Republican People’s Party (CHP) leader Deniz Baykal has already made this very clear by saying that the “referendum will be a historic opportunity for us all to pass a final judgment on the AK Party government.”
This is it. The content does not matter; broadening democratic space is not important; the development of Turkish democracy does not count. It will be an occasion for rivalry between the AK Party and the rest. The AK Party’s rounds of talks with opposition parties are thus unlikely to eliminate their objections.
As it is a referendum, the votes will be divided between yes and no. Those who do not support the AK Party will not vote yes in the referendum, whatever is in the package. So, the referendum will be an opportunity for the opposition to unite against the AK Party. If at the end the AK Party fails to break partisan solidarity in the grass roots of opposition parties, the constitutional referendum may be the beginning of the end of the ruling party.
If the AK Party is going to take this risk, I think the scope of change in the Constitution should be broader to include major reforms in the judiciary, civilian-military relations, higher education, political parties and the Kemalist principles. As no consensus will be forthcoming on the part of the opposition parties and groups, the AK Party should go for maximum reform in order to rally pro-reform social sectors.
