Will the constitutional amendment package lead to a snap election?

When the fate of the package becomes clear, Parliament will have completed the third year of its term. This is the most suitable time for the AK Party to decide to hold a snap election if it deems it advantageous for itself. But will it do so? This question, or rather the answer hereto, does not closely concern the AK Party, but the opposition parties. This question also determines how the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) and the Republican People’s Party (CHP) view the package. The likelihood of a snap election popping out of the package will shape the opposition’s attitude toward the amendments.

Defending the 1982 Constitution

Opposing the constitutional amendments means defending the Constitution, which is the work of a military dictatorship. It is hard to assume responsibility or try to find an excuse for such a stance. Moreover, these amendments are intended to directly change the military tutelary system set up by the masterminds of this Constitution. A 50-year-old fight for democracy lies under the AK Party’s current move.

The military coup of May 27, 1960, the 50th anniversary of which will be next month, built Turkey’s current political system. This is the system that will be changed by these amendments. Indeed, this change began with the fiasco that was the Feb. 28 postmodern military coup. Having reached rock bottom with the crises of 2000 and 2001, Turkey started to seek a way out. By bringing the AK Party to power, it started to bring an end to the ancien régime. On April 27, 2007, Turkey’s ancien régime tried to recover with a shy move. One day later, the Cabinet’s statement, read by Deputy Prime Minister Cemil Çiçek, contained this electronic coup attempt to the confines of the virtual world. Simultaneously, the Ergenekon investigation accelerated. The judiciary caught the shady networks nested within the state and exposed them to daylight, showing the ugly face of the octopus-like organization to everyone. This provided an opportunity for transition into a country of free people who can be sure about the state and about each other. The constitutional amendment package implies that this opportunity is being used correctly and on time.

There are heavy prices to be paid for opposing this opportunity. To oppose the package means, even for the opposition parties, defending the military tutelary system and opposing democracy.

The Peace and Democracy Party (BDP) is obliged to support this package as is. It does not have the luxury to block these amendments by citing the package’s defects or deficiencies. Those who complain about the democratic initiative coming to a halt should seize this opportunity.

The package does not contain articles directly targeting the Kurdish issue. But, it should be remembered that the settlement of the Kurdish issue will be easier in a country with higher democratic standards. Kurds, whose rights are violated, represent the group that needs the legal system this package will bring about most. Allowing members of the military to be tried at civilian courts and terminating the judicial oligarchy over the rule of law are particularly important for the most critical social groups whose rights are at risk. It is for this reason that the BDP has to lend conditional support to the package. Moreover, resistance to the settlement of the Kurdish issue may be eliminated after the implementation of these constitutional amendments. The support of 330 deputies is needed to refer the package to a referendum. The BDP’s parliamentary seats may become critical for this figure. And if this referendum cannot be held due to the BDP’s resistance, Kurds will make this party pay for it.

This package comes as the hardest test for the MHP. It reveals the synthetic components of the MHP. This party entertains two different interpretations of nationalism, and it accommodates two radically different social groups. There are anti-Kurdish factions as well as Western and secularist groups that are attracted by the MHP, on the one hand. There are also conservative/nationalist groups, mainly coming from traditional constituencies in Central Anatolia, on the other. The MHP binds together these two different groups by making its ideology fuzzier than ever and by exerting a weak leadership initiative. The constitutional package is urging the MHP to eliminate this fuzziness and show a clear attitude. It will have a hard time explaining the reasons for its opposition to the package to the conservative/nationalist groups who suffered great tragedies from the military coup of Sept. 12, 1980 and who categorically oppose the military tutelary system. If it lends support to the package, it will, in this case, no longer be attractive to the Western neo-nationalist groups. Thus, the MHP runs the risk of its synthetic components disintegrating. Its leader’s remarks show that they are aware of the danger.

Last chance for the CHP

This is the last chance for the CHP to get off the road leading to destruction. As a party that supports the military tutelary system, the CHP is fading from the political scene. The earthquake caused by a timid move by Şişli Mayor Mustafa Sarıgül shows that the CHP is sitting on rotten foundations. In its capacity as a state party, the CHP and its leader, Deniz Baykal, support the system that is being liquidated. But, it is impossible to let this system live in this day and age. The CHP will either be purged by staying under the falling building that is this system or it will find sound ground to stand on. Being a leftist party that protects fundamental rights and freedoms against the state is the only identity that the CHP can adopt. Otherwise, the constitutional package will be the beginning of the end for the CHP.

The military’s meddling with politics has long prevented democratic competition from effectively taking root in the country. Remember that many political parties, after assuming office as a single party, faded out of the political scene. For instance, the fate of the Motherland Party (ANAVATAN) and the True Path Party (DYP) is largely attributable to their cooperation with the military. Voters penalize political parties that collaborate with the military. This is the fate that the CHP may be doomed to.

Turkey’s political parties incline toward a binary system of competition. There are voters in sufficient numbers to support a conservative party and a leftist liberal party that will compete softly with each other to get closer to the center. The only reason why this political spectrum cannot be formed is the failure of the CHP to represent the leftist liberal wing. Today, political liberalism is being represented by the AK Party, which describes itself as a conservative party. The package prepared by the AK Party is a good measure. There’s one thing to say: This package should have been prepared by the CHP. A CHP that protects fundamental rights and freedoms and that opposes the military tutelary system can emerge as the only force that can counterbalance a conservative party.

Turkey is currently seeing a legal scandal. The commander of the 3rd Army in Erzincan, indicted for being a leader of a terrorist organization, refuses to appear before court. It was the CHP that referred to the Constitutional Court a legal amendment that allows military personnel to be tried in civilian courts. Instead of being a player in democratic life, the CHP acts as the representative and mouthpiece of the military tutelary system. This prevents the CHP from emerging as an alternative to the government.