AK Party parliamentary group deputy chairman Suat Kılıç: Gov’t under siege by active judiciary

With his skillful use of rhetoric and oratory, Kılıç gives opposition parties’ spokespeople a hard time during political debates. Speaking to Today’s Zaman, Kılıç calls on the opposition to promote their policies within the legal sphere.

Will Turkey be able to see a new and civilian constitution during the rule of the AK Party?

The Constitution of 1982 is not a civilian constitution. The drafting of this Constitution was ordered by the military under special circumstances. Actually, the fact that it was prepared under military influence is not a great matter. The problem is that it was drafted under the conditions of 1980. At that time, there were conflicts between rightist and leftist groups. Security was a primary need. Thus, the Constitution was drafted taking security considerations as a basis. While security was emphasized, freedoms and democracy were ignored. In other words, freedoms were overshadowed by the need for security. What we intend is to make a constitution that protects the rule of law, democracy, human rights and the rights of individuals.

Will the new constitution meet these needs?

A contemporary constitution will balance the need for security and for freedoms. No gap in security should be created when freedoms are promoted, and at the same time, freedoms should not be trampled under foot while trying to establish security. This Constitution has been amended several times. However, these amendments are not sufficient. Instead, a new constitution should be drafted to promote the rule of law, democracy and freedoms. However, it is not very likely to do so given the current circumstances in Turkey. Therefore, we are trying to introduce partial amendments.

Why didn’t you introduce the comprehensive draft constitution that you prepared in 2008 to Parliament?

In principle, constitutional amendments should be made with consensus. This is because a constitution is binding upon the entire country. Unfortunately, Turkey’s political position in 2008 did not allow us to do so. The opposition inside and outside Parliament prevented us from taking further steps in this regard. Still, the urgent needs of the country have come to the fore, and the need for amending the Constitution even partially has come to be felt by everyone.

This demand was voiced by the president of the Constitutional Court after the AK Party closure case. Why did you choose to wait until now?

The biggest hindrance to change in Turkey is the group of people who feed on the status quo, says AK Party parliamentary group Deputy Chairman Suat Kılıç, claiming that the opposition CHP and MHP are trying to ascend to power by using the military and the judiciary as a shield. He asserts that Turkey is unable to amend its Constitution or its laws due to the lack of a truly modern left-wing party

This criticism is frequently made. This can be seen as a deficiency on our part. But, after this demand was voiced, we did not want to introduce a package of constitutional amendments specifically about party closures. We wanted to add some other articles to this package as well. Since then, we have always been in search of cooperation. We could not take action since we could not get a positive response from our addressees.

The CHP argues that this Parliament cannot draft a constitution. Do you agree?

To say that Parliament cannot draft a constitution is to deny democracy. Those who say that Parliament cannot draft a constitution are ignoring democracy. We regard this tendency as a fascist one. The Turkish Grand National Assembly is a parliament that has secondary constituent power. In other words, if a referendum is not held, the power to draft a constitution belongs to Parliament. Those who claim that this Parliament cannot amend the Constitution must give a legal, not political, answer to the question, “Why shouldn’t it change it?”

The closure cases concerning the AK Party and the now-defunct pro-Kurdish Democratic Society Party (DTP) are provided as justification. What do you think about that?

Those who cite closure cases as justification for their argument have no knowledge of the law. The CHP asserts that the Constitution must be made by a constituent assembly. I do find it acceptable, but to say that constitutions can be made only by consultation or constituent assemblies set up after military coups is to disregard Parliament. They are trying to say that the assembly of deputies elected by the nation cannot amend the Constitution, but the constituent assemblies of the people appointed by generals can do so.

What do you think about the suggestion that the drafting of the Constitution should be left to the post-election period?

Under the Constitution, Parliament is authorized and expected to continue its legislative work until the end of its term. A power given by the Constitution cannot be revoked by the CHP or the MHP. Article 6 of the Constitution reads, “No person or agency shall exercise any state authority which does not emanate from the Constitution.” It is impossible to understand how the CHP and the MHP can derive this authority and make such a proposal.

The CHP and the MHP also oppose a referendum.

The CHP had opposed the referendum concerning the popular vote of the president in 2007, and it has also raised objections to the current referendum. The CHP’s attitude has some consistency within itself. But it is not a democratic attitude. The ideas they defend have no place in democracy. To say that this nation cannot amend the Constitution or elect its president is not to believe in the nation or democracy. If so, we should not hold any elections in this country. Why would we need elections, then? Can the CHP explain its rage or resentment toward the nation just because they have been denying power to the CHP for 60 years? Is this nation’s will weak just because they do not elect the CHP to office? Is it a nation that is worthless or that must be ignored? Such an approach is nonsense.

What do you say about the claims that you intend to seize control of the judiciary with the new constitutional amendment package?

We certainly do not have any intention of creating a pro-government judiciary. The decisions by the Constitutional Court, the Supreme Court of Appeals, the Council of State, and the Supreme Board of Prosecutors and Judges (HSYK) are there. The presidents and members of the top judicial institutions who claim that the ruling party is trying to besiege the judiciary should first look at their own judicial actions and decisions. For instance, the HSYK stripped five specially authorized prosecutors of their authority in Erzincan. The presidents of the Supreme Court of Appeals and the Council of State as well as the chief public prosecutor of the Supreme Court of Appeals announced that they lent support to this decision. But, the same HSYK did not take any action about former Judges and Prosecutors Association (YARSAV) President Ömer Faruk Eminağaoğlu vis-a-vis an ongoing investigation. What sort of contradiction is this? We are seeking an independent and impartial judiciary, not a pro-government one. The top judiciary must be careful about its own actions.

The prime minister believes that the judiciary has blockaded the executive. Do you really think that you are besieged?

Since we came to power in 2002, we have attached the utmost importance to the judiciary’s problems. We have ensured that the wages and salaries of the members of the judiciary have been increased by 270 percent. We have built 170 new courts of justice. In the past, the presidents of the Supreme Court of Appeals would complain about being stuck between their consciences and their wallets. It would be unfair to claim that a government that is so sensitive to the needs of the judiciary has blockaded the judiciary. Still, we are not content with the judiciary making politically oriented decisions.

Why oppose the non-inclusion of the justice minister and Justice Ministry undersecretary in the HSYK?

Before, the justice ministers were from the CHP and the Democratic Left Party (DSP). When the justice minister and Justice Ministry undersecretary were social democrats, this was not seen as a problem, but when they are conservatives, this has come to be presented as a problem, why? The HSYK takes three members from the Supreme Court of Appeals and two members from the Council of State. And the members of the Supreme Court of Appeals are elected by the HSYK. This structure of mutual election is not democratic, legal or pluralistic.

Do you think that the separation of powers has been disrupted in Turkey?

The problem is not about the system of separation of powers. The problem is that these powers do not stay within the constitutional and legal bounds set for them. The judiciary continually interferes in the sphere of the legislative and the executive. If all powers were restored back to their constitutional boundaries, there would not be a problem.

There has been mention of a new closure case against the AK Party. What can you say about that?

It is unfair to attempt to present a party that has come to power with the majority vote of the people and whose vision is to ensure modernization and whose aim is to become a member of the European Union as the focus of anti-secularism. We seek a universal democracy, not a local one. There is a deliberate campaign being conducted in order to undermine the image of the ruling party which has set pluralist, participatory universal democracy based on individual rights as its target and to portray it as a threat to the fundamental characteristics of the republic and as the focal point of anti-secularism.

So you say this is a plan to get rid of your party?

No one and no party can take democracy back in this country. Secularism is an integral part of democracy in this country. Democracy cannot exist without secularism and vice versa. We are fully aware of this. We believe that the accusations against a ruling party that holds these two concepts in high esteem are part of the attempt to discredit democracy.

Has the conservative view of democracy changed in recent years in Turkey?

The AK Party’s actors are children of farmers, workers or pensioners. The prime minister of this country is the son of a ship worker. We know well that without democracy and the republic, we wouldn’t be here. We have never been and will never be disloyal to the values that have brought us here. We are not a hypocritical government.

The second term of your government does not seem to be successful at all in terms of the EU reform process.

Turkey has not lost anything of its EU vision. But here the EU is doing an injustice to Turkey. The double standards created by the EU have been blocking Turkey’s progress. The EU’s perspective toward Turkey changes when governments change in European countries, and this arouses a strong reaction in the Turkish general public. It also discourages us.

What do you think are the obstacles to change in Turkey?

There is resistance to change in Turkey. There are those who feed on the continuation of the status quo. There are spots of resistance within the judiciary, the legislative and the executive. The status quo is resistant to having a universal democracy. The opposition parties especially are the biggest obstacles to change. The discourse of the CHP and the MHP has no trace of civilian politics. They rely on the military or judicial decisions for their politics. The parties that do not use the political sphere and which cannot fill the opposition gap are the greatest obstacles.

Does the military oppose change?

I think it would be an oversimplification to regard the [Turkish Armed Forces] TSK as the only factor against change. [Deniz] Baykal and [Devlet] Bahçeli are more militarist than the military itself. Politicians who are against change seek to use the military as a shield. The opposition has to return to the legal sphere of politics. As we have come to power through democratic means, they should also opt for being elected to office through democracy.

Is this the reason why there is no alternative to the AK Party as a government?

Without voicing and promoting more democratic demands, the opposition parties cannot come to power. The alternative to the AK Party cannot emerge upon order. You cannot find it through engineering. The discourse that lent power to the AK Party consisted of more freedom, more democracy, human-oriented politics and the rule of law. Any party that can make a better offer could be our alternative. With their current positions, the CHP and the MHP could not be elected to office for 100 years to come.

But the prime minister said that he was content with the opposition.

It was an ironic comment. We are not content with Baykal. If Baykal had been a truly leftist leader who did not advocate for the status quo or who was not resistant to change, Turkey could have undertaken all the necessary changes and transformations during the last eight years. All the constitutional and legal reforms could have been implemented. The lack of a modern left-wing party is the biggest obstacle to change in Turkey.

When will the elections be held? Will the referendum cause more tension?

I don’t think there will be any tension during the referendum similar to what we saw during the presidential election. The opposition parties may be opposed to the referendum, but they cannot say that they do not have trust in the people because there will be general elections immediately after the referendum. We do not plan to hold snap elections in 2010. We will try to recover from the global crisis in 2010. Baykal said that they see the referendum as an opportunity to get rid of us. Here is the opportunity. He should not resist the referendum if he intends to remove us from office.