Public demands reform from politicians and intellectuals
by
Özer SENCAR & Ünal BİLİR*

When we look at the political conditions under which the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) -- which has taken a new step to implement a partial constitutional change that includes reforming the judiciary -- is governing, it is evident that in addition to its own social base, the government has the potential support of a wide segment of society, which includes the constituents of opposition parties, intellectuals, members of the media, civil society organizations and the private sector.

In addition to these, it is also known that international and supranational organizations which Turkey supports or is a member of are also putting pressure on Turkey for reform. In brief, the AK Party government has far-reaching social and circumstantial political support, which is rare for a government that seeks to implement radical reforms. While the results of a survey conducted by the MetroPOLL Strategic and Social Research Center clearly reflect this situation, the findings reveal that the public is demanding new political reforms, starting with the judiciary, from politicians and intellectuals.

When we look at debates from this perspective, we see that taking steps to enforce a constitutional amendment is no longer just a political initiative the government has taken but has become a matter of meeting the society’s demands for reform. While the public overtly expresses its demand and support for reform, it hints at dissatisfaction with the new formula of “making partial changes to the Constitution” so as to keep political risks at a minimum as opposed to drafting a new constitution.

Around 70 percent of the public believes Turkey needs a new constitution while only 27 percent argue that Turkey does not need a new constitution.

The more people feel there is a need for a new constitution, the more important the democratic stability and maturity of the new legislation becomes. The people’s determination to have a Turkey where democratic maturity and the rule of law prevail reflected especially in responses pertaining to the Sledgehammer plot and the democratization process in Turkey. That is, democratization is the next most important factor after living and economic standards in people’s political decisions.

Asked what would be the most important factor in determining which party they would vote for if an election were to be held today, 60.7 percent said unemployment, financial difficulties and other economic factors while 28.5 percent said they would pay attention to the parties’ stance on democracy. It’s very normal for people to make decisions based on economic factors at a time when the economic crisis, inequality in income distribution and high unemployment are still present. However, almost one of every three constituents said they would base their decision on the parties’ attitude on democracy, which is a strong message to all political parties and actors in Turkey regardless of whether they belong to an opposition or ruling party. That is, the people do not have confidence in Turkey’s democratic stability and want politics and political institutions to be based on a stronger democratic framework and want an unquestionable rule of law.

Assessing the status of democracy and the legal state in Turkey in light of the current developments and debates, 41 percent indicated they believed democracy had weakened while only 29.3 percent said they believed democracy had strengthened. While the people sincerely support efforts to consolidate democracy and to make the rule of law permanent, they have doubts and questions about the outcome and management of this process. The public’s reaction to questions about the Sledgehammer plans reveals this striking situation. The people have a jeweler’s attention to detail when it comes to the legal and political legitimacy of attitudes adopted by officials and positions of authority. For example, 58.5 percent approve of the detention of former force commanders and active duty military officers as part of the Sledgehammer investigation, underlining that “every person can be tried in a constitutional state.”

While 38 percent reckoned operations were part of efforts to undermine the military, the majority saw the operations as a legal obligation. However, they did not see the release of former land, air and sea force commanders the same way. When asked how they viewed the release of commanders without taking into context the meeting held between the president, prime minister and chief of General Staff at Çankaya, 48.4 percent described it as a political decision while 38.4 percent described it as a legal decision.

However, when the trilateral meeting was taken into context, 64.7 percent said the meeting was “effective” in the decision to release former force commanders while 22.9 percent said they believed the meeting “was not effective” in the decision.

The figures show that while the majority regards the operations conducted by judicial authorities legal (58.8 percent), they believe the meeting between the president, prime minister and chief of General Staff had a role in the decision to release former force commanders (64.7 percent). The people virtually believe the commanders were released not by the judiciary but by the top of the state. The same conviction was prevalent in regards to the judicial process in which Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) members were not arrested at the Habur crossing, creating suspicions that the decision was based on political considerations and not specifically the law. Considering that 57.5 percent of people said they believe that the government interferes in judicial processes and that 40 percent said the General Staff influences judicial decisions in some way, there is a public impression that is contradictory to a democratic legal state.

Implementing constitutional reforms that will consolidate democracy and the law is the only way to resolve these contradictions and to reinforce democratic stability and maturity that people long for. Considering that 78.7 percent want judicial reform and 69.7 demand a new constitution, giving up on constitutional reforms due to political risks or making only short-term quick fixes will not only fall short of meeting the public’s pressing demand for reform but also fail to develop a much needed strong democracy in Turkey.

In essence, the ideal option is not to fix the cracks in the roof but to redo the roof completely.

*Professor Özer Sencar is from the MetroPOLL Strategic and Social Research Center. Assistant Professor Ünal Bilir is an instructor in Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University’s EU and foreign trade program.