The decision they will be asked to make is to vote “yes” for the whole deal or to stamp the “no” side of the ballot paper. Not surprisingly, in a country given to political fissure, this choice appears to have cleaved the nation in two.
The view of this column, not to mention those with whom I share this editorial page, is “why all the fuss?” If you stroll down the list of changes, there is nothing to raise so many hackles on so many necks. The amendments range from measures which supplement the rights of the individual (changes to Article 51 would repeal a clause that bars membership in more than one labor union, or to Article 20, which give individuals the right, in principle, to see their personal information protected) to the well-intentioned -- giving the state the obligation to protect children from abuse and violence. One of the amendments allows for the establishment of a parliamentary ombudsmen -- someone to hear citizens’ complaints. Where is the harm in that?
Of course there are changes to the legal system and the debate is whether this allows for desirable political oversight over judicial appointment (as is the case in many other countries) or opens the door to undesirable political patronage. There are also measures which put the military more firmly under civilian control. Again the view here is that these are changes which Turkey, as a mature democracy, will have to make sooner or later.
But all things are never equal. The opposition’s main objection to the referendum is not the substance of the individual clauses but the overall intention of the government to increase its executive authority. “We are on the way to becoming a one-party state,” a high up in the Republican People’s Party (CHP) told me. They see a “yes” as an endorsement which the government does not deserve. The same is true of some (but not all) of Turkey’s Kurds, who see no reason to reward a government that has raised expectations which it then failed to meet.
The problem is that the government, either from choice or necessity, has taken up the opposition’s challenge. If you listen to the prime minister’s speechifying, it is clear he, too, is asking for a “yes” vote less on the merits of the reform package than as a general endorsement of his party’s performance. Turkey is improving, he tells his audiences. Don’t let the jealous “naysayers” get in the way.
At the heart of the matter is the 1982 Constitution, which the reform package sets out to amend. This is a document that bestows great powers on those who hold the reins of state. Its authors never sought to create a system of checks and balances because they assumed they or their successors would always be in charge. They never envisaged that a political movement would be able to wrest the steering wheel from their hands. And knowing from firsthand experience that an enormous amount of control is embedded in the Constitution, they are justifiably fearful. From one perspective it is like Frankenstein’s monster getting the wrong brain.
Those of a liberal persuasion know that what the country needs is not amendments but a new constitution which allows governments to govern but protects the rights of the citizen. The government has promised this but it is a promise it knows will be difficult to keep. The government also needs to address the genuine fears that it cannot tolerate opposition. The prime minister’s recent admonition to business leaders, á la Georgedubbya, that they should stand up as either with him or against him, is not just rhetorical excess but cause for concern. However, the opposition also needs to include the words “responsible” and “constructive” somewhere in their job description. All of which goes to explain why a referendum which should have been a done deal is becoming a close-run contest.
