This time, the campaign won't be about full-fledged constitutional change, however, but about a limited amendment package: probably on two or three articles of the Constitution. The prime minister is aware of the still relevant threat of "party closure" and related European Union criticism. As the Europeans are not happy with the current ease of closing down political parties in Turkey and as the AK Party is still the foremost candidate for such a possible closure case, why not rush for a change to the Constitution on that issue? There are forces both pulling and pushing. The president of the Supreme Court of Appeals was the first to endorse the prime minister's call for a partial constitutional amendment. Hasan Gerçeker asked that the proposed amendments include articles that would enhance the independence of judicial organs. In my reading, this was not an outpouring of approval; this was yet another call for comprehensive, inclusive and all-embracing constitutional reform.
The problem with a partial amendment package is the mere fact that it is a problem-solving exercise. Constitutions are not, or should not be, used as legal platforms to solve legal or practical problems a nation faces at a particular time in its history. That was the mistake of the AK Party government when it tried to turn the right to wear a headscarf into a constitutional right -- whereas it is a human right that needs not be recorded in a written constitution. Since the military regimes of 1960 and 1980 regarded the previous constitutions as the mothers of all evil, they wanted to deal with all social problems through their constitutions, and they also wanted to assure constitutional security for themselves. The Constitution should not be regarded as a shield, nor as a sword. Former President Süleyman Demirel used to carry the Constitution as a shield, and at least once, former President Ahmet Necdet Sezer used it as an "assault weapon" against the prime minister of the country. This tradition of misplacement, misrepresentation and misuse of the Constitution is unfortunately continuing with the AK Party government.
The Constitution is first and foremost a symbol of unity for the nation, and the dominant symbol the current Constitution of Turkey carries is a "Made by the Military" sign. The current Constitution of Turkey has been amended more than 85 times in 26 years. It is distinctly more democratic than the original 1982 Constitution, but the Made by the Military sign is still on it. Any further partial reforms won't change this. Change each and every single article of the 1982 Constitution step by step, and for the sake of not disturbing the "established regime," don't call it complete constitutional reform; the result won't be the same as making that final constitution in one step. The nation wants a new constitution. The nation wants to get rid of the shame of this "tutelage constitution" and have a new one. This is of course difficult, and the experiences of 2008 must have taught the AK Party to measure its steps with the utmost care, but when, and if, the local elections fill the sails of the government's boat once more, I would prefer to see that original synergy of rewriting the constitution afresh.
This synergy is valuable and should not be lost to making changes to the Constitution. I was once told by a wise man that it wasn't always the best idea to close a hole with a finger because if somebody were able to seal off that hole for good, he would not be able to realize the need simply because you closed the hole with your finger. "Leave the hole open and let them realize the need," he used to tell me. A partial amendment -- or several partial amendments -- to the Constitution is just like that: it kills the synergy that the nation has created for positive, constructive change. It gives a sense of satisfaction through temporary solutions. It gives a sense of partial victory in being unable to do everything, but also not failing to do anything at all. We can live with this current Constitution for another generation, but we don't want to.