By interpreting the speeches of some sociologists in a way far that is from the truth, they are propagandizing that the system in Turkey will be transformed into a “religious dictatorship” in the event a new constitution is made. It is beneficial to scrutinize this view. A prominent quality of dictatorships is that they are based on repression and coercion. In terms of the running of the system, all the political and administrative authorities are gathered in one single center; whereas the separation of forces is essential in modern democracies.
We should also immediately note that it is impossible to find any dictatorship in the history of Islam. The public administration being an authoritarian one is not enough to term the political regime a dictatorship. In fact, the power of the authoritarian administration in types of societies where there is social and cultural pluralism can be exercised to a limited extent. But a dictatorship gathers all the authorities in centers it determines and its aim is to build a totalitarian society. Looking from this angle, the source of the modern dictatorships in the Islamic world today is the West, and the most prominent dictatorships are fundamentally secular. The Baath regime of Saddam, overthrown in 2003, was the most radically secular regime of the region. If it is possible to find autocratic regimes and dictatorships in the Islamic world, we have imported them from the West, just like the “religious monarchies” that we have imported although they never existed in our history. Nevertheless, the religion and the lifestyle that must be shaped according to it are not imposed on all people who live under authoritarian regimes in the Middle East.
We can take the issue a step further to underline this: there have been theocracies peculiar to Western Europe; however theocratic regimes are not “Christian dictatorships.” On the other hand, since orthodoxy has never been an independent political entity on its own in the world, we will hold the experience of Europe with this denomination outside the discussion. And this implies that the dictatorships seen in modern times are secular, in accordance with their nature.
Another façade of the issue is directly connected to reality: everybody knows that Turkey became a part of the globalization process led by the United States and a democratization process with the European Union (EU). Almost the only framework adopted as a reference by the AK Party in its judicial and social policies and administration strategies is the Copenhagen Criteria imposed on us by the EU membership process and the EU acquis communautaire, so much so that the most important concern of a draft of constitution made by a minor scientist and a politician is endear itself to the EU organs. Leader of the Republican People’s Party (CHP) Deniz Baykal complains that they are able to obtain information on the new constitution only from the ambassadors of EU-member countries. Everybody says that Turkey cannot become a member to the EU with the current constitution drafted in 1982 by the military government of the time, and thus the preparation for a new constitution is based on this technical ground. With this in mind, let’s ask: while the main target of the new constitution is to observe a full compatibility with the EU membership process, how could the AK Party government’s aim be establishing a religious dictatorship?? Is this not a bit too much skeptical and thus some kind of paranoia?
The new constitution has one side open to criticism: first of all, its preparation method is wrong; it is not based on the “negotiatory politics” which I myself conceptualized. Scientists and politicians cannot draft a constitution; only the legislative assembly (Parliament) can draft it. The job of drafting a constitution should belong to the public, because constitutions are social agreements. And social agreements can be achieved by developing and running the negotiatory politics. Be that as it may, the new constitution has the chance of being a better one than the 1961 and 1982 constitutions. Those opposing the drafting of a new constitution and instilling unsubstantiated and ill-founded fears into the society should at once stop defending the constitutions drafted by military regimes and they should express explanatory and enlightening ideas about how to draft a real constitution with the participation of all social groups.
