New era of Turkish democracy
by
MÜMTAZ’ER TÜRKÖNE

A junta consisting of mad officers may detain government officials and seize strategic locations, thereby overthrowing the legitimate government and taking control of the state apparatus. What then? The first thing they would do then is rebuild the military tutelage. Will the current circumstances in the international arena and the internal dynamics of Turkey allow this to happen? The answer to this question varies depending on the extent of bloodshed and violence performed by the junta. It is very likely that bloodshed would be great, the country’s economy would collapse and the society would find itself in complete chaos. But what if the subversive generals are so intrepid as to take the risk?

Actually, the era of coups has ended as well. There are no such mad officers in the Turkish military. Even if there might be some, the sane officers would not allow any such adventure.

Turkey has closed the book of coups. We have defeated the malady that is called a coup and put it into its coffin. Experts who are proficient at their jobs, e.g., judges, are dexterously hammering big nails into that coffin. No one should worry. Some are happy, some not. Some are relieved while others have concerns about what they should do now to help the coffin be hurried to its grave. We will then collectively shovel soil over it and flatten the ground.

Subversive generals commanding two armies

It is true that the 3rd Army is being led by a general who is accused of membership in a terrorist organization. Moreover, the commander of the 1st Army is a pasha who ordered the preparation of the infamous “Action Plan to Fight Reactionaryism,” which served as a reference for this terrorist organization. Should we be concerned? No. Those who should worry are the General Staff and the government as they are expected to explain this situation to the people. To remove these pashas from office temporarily under the applicable provisions of the Military Personnel Law is nothing but performing an indispensable responsibility. Otherwise, the fact that these pashas continue to occupy their current position will only lead to confusion in the minds of people. That is all.

Privacy is the greatest strength of subversive generals. They cannot work in broad daylight. The commanders of the 1st and 2nd armies cannot use their inferiors for purposes other than legal ones. The Constitution’s prohibition against complying with “illegal” orders is known to all military officers by heart. Article 137 of the Constitution reads: “An order which in itself constitutes an offense shall under no circumstances be executed; the person who executes such an order shall not evade responsibility.” Failure to remove these generals temporarily from office will not create a risk of coup but only a gap in Turkey’s security. Indeed, Turkish military officers who closely abide by the rules will be suspicious about orders coming from the headquarters of these armies, which will hinder the routine function.

The military is just trying to save its dignity, to which it attaches great importance. It is looking for possibilities for a dignified retreat. With its aloof and careful position, the government is offering the military an opportunity to withdraw honorably. This retreat is not a tactical one. The military is abandoning its sphere of power within the state. And the resulting gap is being filled by the democratic government.

Democracy’s agenda

The military has long exerted de facto control over the country’s management. With the removal of this control, the ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party) is filling the gap. This changes the actual balances and power relations in the country.

Two different cases are sufficient to give us an idea about the future of these power balances. One is the polarization between the prime minister and some columnists. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan called on media bosses to fire columnists who create chaos in the country. Reactions to these remarks, seen largely as an intervention in the freedom of thought, came from an unexpected source. Columnists of papers that favor democracy in civilian-military tension and thus lend support to the government protested against the prime minister’s intervention in the freedom of the press.

The protest text, prepared by the initiative of Gülay Göktürk and signed by me among others, is an important sign of the start of a new era of democracy in Turkey. Now that the country has been saved from subversive generals and coups, we can expect democratic actors to fulfill their democratic responsibilities more strongly than ever. Now, those who have supported the ruling AK Party against the junta members will be more selective and fastidious. The power given by democracy to the winning party no longer has rivals other than other elected parties. Thus, we will further demand the rule of law, greater respect and freedom. And our criticisms will become harsher. The end of the era of coups has left the AK Party without excuses. The country’s problems, which, in past, could be brought to the agenda because of regime debates, will now find a suitable ground for discussion in a democratic atmosphere.

Referendum

The second case that ushers in a new era is the constitutional referendum that the government is preparing to undertake. The president of the Constitutional Court cautioned the government about the referendum. He said the government cannot do everything with pure reliance on a majority vote. The government, on the other hand, believes that a “yes” vote of 51 percent or more will be sufficient in the referendum.

Constitutional Court President Haşim Kılıç’s warning that “the constitutional amendments should rely on an extensive consensus and take into consideration sensitivities” is right and proper from a democratic perspective. AK Party Deputy Chairman Hüseyin Çelik’s conclusion that “if the referendum produces a vote of approval above 50 percent, this means it is democratically accepted by the people” is correct only from a formal perspective.

Referendums may be antidemocratic in two respects. First, resorting to a popular vote is a practice of “direct democracy.” An institutionally functioning form of democracy is “representative democracy” -- as is the case in our country. When parliamentary democracy has been established by representative democracy and is functional and operates with its institutions, it is an exception to resort to direct democracy as it disrupts the representation mechanisms. Second, the majority can never be allowed to make decisions to restrict the rights or freedoms of those in the minority. Otherwise, this will lead to the despotism of the majority. If the referendum, whatever topic it may be about, produces a result closer to the vote balances of the political parties, this will result in the first danger, and if topics such as the death penalty or the election threshold are voted on in a referendum, this may give rise to the second risk. For instance, a referendum held in 1987 to remove political bans was antidemocratic because the majority should not be allowed to decide about the political rights of any group.

For the referendum practice to be in breach of democracy, it must be used frequently for matters that institutions of representative democracy fail to solve and transform the system into a “plebiscitary democracy.” In all cases, plebiscitary democracy has functioned in the form of a dictatorship throughout history. The second risk is about referring bills that will introduce limitations on the fundamental rights and freedoms of those who are not in the majority to referendum. Both cases do not play well with the spirit of democracy.

However, there is no risk in employing referendums to expand the fundamental rights and freedoms enshrined in the Constitution. Introducing greater difficulties for the closure of political parties can be given as an example. It is not disadvantageous to democracy to implement reforms that will ensure the impartiality of the judiciary, thereby emboldening the judicial protection of fundamental rights and freedoms. This is the only criterion for determining whether the government’s package of constitutional reforms is democratic or not. If this package expands and promotes fundamental rights and freedoms, i.e., if the majority introduces some limitations to itself through laws, then a 51-percent yes vote will make it legitimate. If it damages the fundamental rights and freedoms of even a single person (for instance, introducing the death penalty), it will be antidemocratic even if it is approved by a 99.9 percent vote.

The “general consensus” advised by the head of the Constitutional Court should not be taken as referring only to political parties. The government can overcome obstacles created by the opposition against constitutional reforms and can do this by employing negotiation-based democratic tools such as holding workshops with concerned groups. It already has a good repertoire of experience in this respect.