That many are still perched uncomfortably on the fence is reflected in the opinion polls. A survey commissioned by the governing party reassures its paymasters that they have a five-point lead, but another respected organization warns that the “NO” camp is ahead by the narrowest thread. There are, in any case, enough still undecided voters to make the outcome uncertain. Any last minute bad news, major blunders or unpredictable events could spin the outcome any which way.
The reason for this national ambivalence, the argument runs, is that citizens are not entirely certain what they are voting about. Are they being asked to endorse a series of liberal tweaks to an illiberal constitution or are they being asked to endorse the party in power? For some, this question is irrelevant. The Justice and Development Party (AK Party) has during its eight years in power succeeded in cultivating a strong popular base which is prepared to trust the judgment of the prime minister. Similarly, there are those who believe the government has been in office too long and will use any means possible to wrap it across the knuckles.
There cannot be many who believe that a Turkey which votes “YES” on Sept. 12 will wake up the next day to become a society ruled by sweet and democratic reason. As the opposition has hammered home on many an occasion, there is much the government could have done through simple legislation to make the institutions of state more accountable: lifting immunity from prosecution for members of Parliament or lowering the high threshold that parties need to be elected (a party could win all the votes in one electoral district and still not be elected if it receives less than 10 percent of the national vote). The AK Party has been winning elections with evermore handsome majorities since their initial success in 2002, and a strong performance next Sunday will of course help it to consolidate its position. The converse of this is that even winning by a slim majority will be a signal that they are losing momentum. Yet the argument that a strong “YES” will give the prime minister a chokehold on the democratic process is not convincing either.
If there is a consensus emerging from the often bitter exchanges between the government and the opposition, it is that this package is a small step and that Turkey should adopt a new constitution altogether. Given that this is the case, outside observers may wonder how the government has managed to maneuver itself into the position it is in now, where it is risking so much capital on an outcome that matters -- but not all that much. Mr. Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, as his voice grew horse from addressing one rally after another, might have been asking the same question over how he landed himself with a popular vote of confidence in his premiership. He has, after all, a personal stake in the outcome. Inevitably the referendum vote will be seen as dress rehearsal when, for the first time, the Turkish president is chosen by a national ballot rather than a vote of Parliament. And Mr. Erdoğan is almost certain to be a candidate for that job.
Of course, the referendum campaign has been bloody enough -- imagine what would have happened if the government had risked trying to promulgate a whole new constitution. I have argued that the AK Party’s most obvious intention in changing the Constitution was not to enjoy absolute power but to protect itself from arbitrary closure by the Constitutional Court. The irony is that it lost the one clause it wanted most through a rebellion within its own parliamentary ranks, of members of Parliament unwilling to afford that same protection to a Kurdish nationalist party. Of course the Kurdish nationalists themselves did not support that change. They have decided to boycott the whole affair.
Yes or no. Not as easy as it looks.
