No one, the theory goes, can name them all (“There was Droopy ... Sleepy ... Dumbo?”). In the Turkish remake, the two anti-heroes sit listlessly at the counter of an all-night tripe soup parlour trying to recall the entire list of constitutional amendments which voters were called upon to approve in the September 2010 referendum (“Wasn’t there one about banning political parties?” “No, that one never got through Parliament.” “Having the president appoint judges?” “No, that one was modified by the Constitutional Court.” “Something about women civil servants having the right to collective bargaining every other Thursday except in peace time?” “Have another drink.”).This is not to make light of a series of changes to the 1982 Constitution, a document promulgated when Turkey was under martial law and which no one, apart from the most blowhard, militarist die-hard, much likes. However, it is not unreasonable to speculate that when an eligible 50 million voters ponder whether to vote “yes” or “no” they will not base their decision on the issues actually under consideration. Indeed, the door prize for knowing exactly how many clauses of the Constitution are being amended would probably go unclaimed. Instead, the electorate will be deciding whether they accept the government’s recommendation that the package is a good thing. In short, it has become a vote of confidence in their judgement and a “no” would inevitably be a step down the slippery slope to an early general election.
There is no point for the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) to complain that this is the case. They can, of course, point a finger of blame at the opposition, who under legal procedure made the referendum inevitable when they failed to cooperate even on changes that no sane person could object to. These include limiting the government’s right to stop citizens travelling broad, allowing individuals to appeal to the Constitutional Court and restricting the rights of military courts to try civilians, or allowing for the creation of an ombudsman. (Trying to find the details of the package is something of a challenge. Combing the Official Gazette is an exercise in despair. However, faithful old Wikipedia [http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Türkiye_Cumhuriyeti_Halk_Oylaması], in its Turkish incarnation, gives a working list.) On the other hand, the changes will not, either individually or cumulatively, perfect the quality of Turkish democracy. That depends on state institutions applying the laws that already exist with a fresh understanding.
In a perverse way, this may be what the referendum is being asked to decide. The most dramatic changes being proposed are those affecting the courts and the military. They entail installing greater political accountability over organizations who believe that the natural order of things is for those organizations to make the politicians more accountable. “Now is not the time to give a government more control,” says the opposition. “They will use it to install an elected dictatorship.” “Better than an unelected one,” the government replies. “No state institution should be a law unto itself.”
The debate over democratic accountability is an important one. We see it in the de facto power struggle over who gets promoted in the military. And we will see more of it as the referendum vote approaches. But there is a chance that debate will go astray.
If you’ve ever seen the ballot paper in Berkeley, California, you’d discover it’s not much slimmer than the city’s phone book, containing a whole series of amendments and proposals that give citizens a direct say in how their schools are run and their rubbish collected and how they are otherwise taxed and governed. But as instruments of national government, referenda are notoriously imperfect. Even the Swiss managed to make fools of themselves when they voted to ban the building of minarets that no one wanted to build in the first place (and no, a ban on yodelling will not be on the ballot this September).
