It happens as the nation is poised to vote on whether to approve a large but by no means comprehensive package of constitutional reforms. While the governing Justice and Development Party (AK Party) scored an increased 47 percent share of the ballot in the 2007 general elections, it is unlikely to do quite so well this time. The latest MetroPOLL sample has just crossed my desk and shows the government still comfortably in the lead. But to win a referendum it needs the backing of 50 plus percent of the electorate. Whether it is a false scent or not, an invigorated opposition smells blood. Come Sept. 12, the day of the poll, it is determined to move in for the kill.It has to be said, the chances are they will fail. The AK party supporters are better motivated and far better organized. That same MetroPOLL survey shows the “yes” vote is well out front. It could well be that Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu, the new leader of the Republican People’s Party (CHP) opposition has made his play too soon. The CHP’s argument is that AK is in danger of becoming a one party state -- but in effect this is also a confession of how ineffectual they themselves have been for the last eight years. It is a tactic that could well backfire. If the “yes” wins, this will make it seem as if the AK Party itself enjoys more than 50 percent.
When you look at the fine print of the constitutional amendments, most of the changes are at best positive and at worst unexceptionable. The most controversial changes would give Parliament some input into how the body that administers the courts is selected -- a practice which is not at odds with Western democracies -- the extreme case being England, where the office entrusted with the independence and functioning of the courts, that of the Lord Chancellor, is a cabinet position.
However, the opposition argues that what is acceptable in the UK is no good for Turkey. It is much the same argument used to question the government’s half successful attempt to cull its own military at the recent annual review of promotions and retirement. It would seem self-evident that in an EU aspirant nation, the politicians should be in control of the generals and not the other way round. Not even the opposition argues the reverse. However, Mr. Kılıçdaroğlu did say that governments should respect the military’s “customary practice,” suggesting that politicians’ customary practice is cronyism and interference.
The main criticism of the package is that it does not go far enough, and there is a substantial abstention campaign among those who feel a “yes” would unnecessarily flatter the government’s sense of their own democratic credentials. Indeed, were greater democracy the government’s dedicated aim, there is much it could have easily done -- including lowering the threshold from 10 percent of the national vote that a party needs to qualify for seats in Parliament. There has been much moral outrage at the way acting officers, suspected of taking part in a coup planning exercise, defied an arrest warrant which would have prevented their promotion. Yet nothing has been done to remove the statutory parliamentary immunity from prosecution automatically enjoyed by MPs.
However, the most enthusiastic supporters of the “yes” campaign are not Turkey’s democrats but investors in Turkey, who worry that a “no” vote will launch Turkey into an election cycle could lead to an early poll and even a coalition government. The reservations are partly that Mr. Kılıçdaroğlu has not yet convinced the markets that the CHP has a fully functioning economic policy. However, the prior concern is that the government will overheat the economy. Last year the government teased the markets with a promise that it would sign on to an International Monetary Fund (IMF) agreement. Instead it promised to abide by its own self-administered fiscal rule. But the markets are increasingly skeptical that the government will abide by this rule itself.
