The Republican People’s Party (CHP) is talking about consensus on the amendments and is accusing the government of not yet having sought it. But it was the CHP that declined requests for meetings from President Gül, Prime Minister Erdoğan and the head of the Turkish Parliament. For months the CHP refused to accept the legitimacy of the president and the government and walked out of Parliament before votes took place. As soon as Parliament made any changes, the CHP hit the road to the Constitutional Court to have them nullified or suspended. As they have had all the amendments in favor of the people abolished, it seems that the CHP does not seek “consensus” with the overwhelming majority of the Turkish public; their consensus is only with the status quo and “deep state” elements. Do they understand “consensus” only as consent to their tutelage?The CHP had previously proposed some structural amendments to the judicial system and the format of the Constitutional Court as they were set up in the 1982 Constitution; these changes did not differ much from the AK Party’s suggestions now. So, we must ask, why does the CHP now see these changes as unlawful and unconstitutional?
The CHP leadership now claims that public support for the AK Party has dropped below 30 percent and that the public would express its lack of confidence with a “no” vote if the reforms went to referendum. So, we must ask, why does the CHP not support a public referendum rather than opposing it and running to the Constitutional Court?
The Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) also stayed away from Parliament during the presidential election, other votes and the passage of legislation, with a default position of opposing everything the government suggested. It too has declined all invitations to discussions from the AK Party. The MHP suggests that the proposed amendments are not the best possible. So where is its “best,” then? What are its constructive, rational alternatives? The nationalists oppose the reform in the judiciary, saying that it will not make the top judiciary impartial and independent, as if it were so now and as if it were not oligarchic, factional and ideological at present.
Another faction in the debates is the Supreme Board of Judges and Prosecutors (HSYK). Currently, approximately 350 judges and prosecutors nominate and select all higher court judges from among their own numbers, and this juridical oligarchy is now opposing the proposed selection of 10 members from among the 12,000 judges of the lower courts to work on the lower judges’ disciplinary issues. Some are threatening to prosecute the minister of justice and his undersecretary for attempting to change the Constitution by force and have leaked to the press that that they will cooperate with the CHP to accuse the president of “treason” if he approves the passage of the reforms, or they will refer it to public referendum. So, we must ask, why do they not wish others to be able to witness what they do, and why will they not accept any amendment that would make their decisions open to legal perusal?
The Peace and Democracy Party (BDP) and its leadership, and the incarcerated leader of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), Abdullah Öcalan, also oppose the amendments but will contribute to the cultural and political rights of the Kurdish people and the party and will help to restrain the deep state or junta formation within the military and the judiciary that foments chaos and destruction in the Southeast.
The government, EU bodies, and other international organizations are in favor of the proposed constitutional amendments. The efforts are seen a step in the direction of democratization, normalization and improvement of political conditions compared to the protectionism and totalitarianism Turkey has endured thus far.
The discussions reveal many things: legitimate differences of opinion and opposing interests, but also partisanship, disinformation tactics, self-contradiction, and self-degradation of certain elements in Turkey. The usual scare stories about regime change, a fundamentalist takeover, an Islamist subduing of the secularist judiciary and military and anti-Western, and religious dicta are being bandied around. However, educating people fully about their rights and freedoms and about the amendments or even a whole new constitution can prevent the public from falling for disinformation and keep the democratic process moving.
For the sake of democracy and the rule of law, the government should persist with this long-overdue course of action which the people of Turkey, including its minorities, long for.
