The government has already declared that it has adopted salami tactics for the constitutional reform. There is no full-fledged rewriting of the Constitution on the horizon. This, the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) hoped, would ease the resistance of the parliamentary opposition to the reform project. The first slice in the Constitution reform would have the articles relating to the closing of political parties. This change is -- or should we say, was -- important both because it is asked for by EU observers and because it will secure the AK Party in the face of a possible -- or should we say, probable and imminent -- closure case. Constitutional amendments have already found support at the societal level: Several civil society organizations prepared their alternative texts to be adopted as the new constitution, and others declared their willingness to support a government-led change.The previous attempt to change the Constitution was blocked by an artificial agenda created by the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) when the party leader challenged the prime minister on passing a joint constitutional amendment on the baseless headscarf ban in universities. The whole constitutional package was thus stuck in a partial constitutional amendment. The artificial agenda continued to busy the government even after that amendment was made, since the Constitutional Court overstepped the limits of its authority and cancelled the parliamentary decision about the new article of the Constitution. The political agenda changed so rapidly that the government was not able to thoroughly discuss the new draft for the planned constitutional change.
After the consequent referendum on the direct election of the president, the prime minister stated that society should be prepared for several more referenda. This was interpreted as the willingness of the AK Party to continue on the constitutional reform through referenda. This was a message to the opposition which rejected the constitutional reform efforts on the pretext that they were not based on a parliamentary consensus. The prime minister was hinting that his party would prefer the load of creating a national consensus to a parliamentary one.
The people were, the prime minister thought, easier to convince than Deniz Baykal.
The results of the March 2009 local elections were forcefully interpreted as a failure for the AK Party. Prime Minister Erdoğan himself suggested that he had gotten the message, and a Cabinet reshuffle followed as a sign of his response to the perceived message. He also declared that his government would continue in its efforts to change the Constitution.
In a year of global economic crisis, the opposition -- both the parliamentary and the extra-parliamentary opposition -- had enough “ammunition” to block any effort to change the Constitution. The recent artificial “mine clearing” agenda is just one such example. The agenda was skillfully created and served to the opposition media. The news dealing with the government-sponsored bill in Parliament that will facilitate mine clearing on the Turkish-Syrian border is prepared in such a way that it does not relate the benefits to the nation from clearing. They don't remember the fact that the country is obliged to clear the mines according to a treaty signed in 1997, long before the AK Party came to power, and ratified in 2003. The opposition claimed that the government was going to give the mined lands to Israel for tens of years in return for clearing the mines. The chief of general staff declared the army's unwillingness to do the clearing job. The opposition blocked the bill in Parliament by literally “occupying the platform” in a most uncivilized manner.
Why is there such hustle and bustle on an issue in which the AK Party may have no political gain for its own constituency? How on earth can both the parliamentary and the non-parliamentary opposition come together on an issue that has no uniting potential for the opposition?
There is only one explanation: This is part of an orchestrated effort to block the efficient running of governmental functions. This is a way to prevent a fruitful discussion on the constitutional reform. The prime minister should remember his October 2007 statement in which he asked the nation to get used to referenda.
