On Sunday everyone will head to the polls and vote according to their personal convictions. It is exactly at this point that we need to ask our conscience one last question: “What will we gain? Who will win if we say ‘no’? Who will win if we say ‘yes’?” You can rest assured that those who ignore the details of the referendum and approach it solely concerned through partisanship will be extremely ashamed later. Those who head to the polls with anger and jealousy will be extremely regretful.If, for example, the referendum results in a “no,” then of course all eyes are going to turn to the no front. There will be a flux of questions. There is no way party leaders will be prepared to confront the questions and inquisitions that will remain on the agenda for many years. This is because the implications of the “no” outcome will follow the responsible people like a nightmare. Criticism will always be about the content of the referendum and will be based on concrete facts.
For example, the sin of maintaining the Constitution that resulted from the Sept. 12, 1980 coup will be an overwhelming burden upon their shoulders. All parties profess to be against the 1980 coup. For years the Republican People’s Party (CHP) described itself as a victim of the 1980 coup, as did the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) and the Peace and Democracy Party (BDP). Now they have joined together to defend that coup’s Constitution. This is a pity. Once the excitement dwindles won’t their constituents ask “Did we do something that made us hide behind this coup Constitution? Why for the sake of stubbornness and the plague of opposition did we doom this society to an outdated constitution?” Once the dust settles, you will have nothing to say to the people. Protecting and defending the coup Constitution suits no party and none of their invented excuses will be convincing.
Another example: Hundreds of people have been kicked out of the army by Supreme Military Council (YAŞ) decisions and these people have not been allowed to defend themselves at all. A substantial portion of them were expelled over vague accusations, like “reactionaryism.” The constitutional amendments would allow these individuals to appeal such decisions to the judiciary. Anyone who opposes such appeals must provide a reasonable justification. The public will ask those who gave a conscientious “no” vote and, of course, the party leaders who encouraged them to vote “no”: “Why did you oppose the constitutional amendment that allowed these people who were arbitrarily expelled from the military to seek judicial review? What did you gain?” Are there any MHP members that can provide a clear and bold answer to this poignant question? Can any person with a heart go to sleep with a clear conscience at the end of the day in the face of this heart-wrenching question?
Here is another example: The current debates concerning the Supreme Board of Judges and Prosecutors (HSYK) and the Constitutional Court are obvious. Members of the higher judiciary said “we need Öcalan” to help them oppose the referendum. They hoped for cooperation from the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) and welcomed efforts to stir “chaos.” HSYK members are being accused of playing dirty tricks to change the course of critical cases. Some have been photographed speaking with Ergenekon suspects, others have been accused of holding talks with certain people to ensure that that case fails. The higher judiciary has basically become the operations center of a limited class and ideology. The referendum will give the HSYK and Constitutional Court a more pluralistic and democratic structure. To be able to say “no” to this, one either has to be benefiting from this structure or so extremely partisan that it makes him blind to the facts. With the damage that the HSYK and Constitutional Court have caused to law and democracy due to obvious ideological biases in recent years, how can any conscientious person support the continuation of this structure?
Do I need to give any more examples? This is the case for all of the amendments. If I were to write a paragraph on each of them this column would obviously not be enough. Therefore, everyone should listen to their heart and properly contemplate what this constitutional amendment will bring to our country. Believe me, the 26-item amendment package contains nothing that will harm individuals, upset society or lower the standard of democracy. That is the reason why the “no” front persistently avoids debating the content of the package and turns the debate into a political squabble. Creating a “no front” over enmity toward Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and opposition to the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) is the result of having an unsettled referendum culture. We are not going to vote for a party in the referendum. We are going to vote on constitutional amendments. Why not thoroughly analyze the package and reach a decision for our country?
Will the MHP win if the outcome is “no”? No. Will the CHP win? Not at all. Will the BDP win? That is impossible. Who will win if the outcome is a “yes”? We should not leave the answer to this question to subjective analysis. We must look at what the 26-article constitutional amendment package can achieve for the individual and for society. We should not be taken over by small calculations about how the AK Party will benefit if the outcome is a “yes”: Such an outcome will enable democratic standards to be improved, not a political party. We can not approach the referendum with the simple logic that says, “No one will be able to stop Erdoğan if there is a powerful yes,” because the result of the referendum will not be a vote of confidence for a leader; it will be the outcome of this nation’s democratic demands. Better yet, let’s think about what benefits or risks there are for our country if the vote we give turns out to be the majority in the referendum on Sept. 12.
