Opposition starts anti-reform tours with no concrete proposals

The government has said it is open to suggestions on the package, but the CHP has refused to raise any concrete objections. Instead, it has dismissed the package, claiming it is a government attempt to take over the judiciary, despite the fact that the European Union has urged Turkey to reform its judicial system.

The CHP Central Executive Board (MYK) convened on Wednesday chaired by CHP leader Deniz Baykal. The board decided to have talks with civil society organizations over why the party opposes the draft package. In so doing, the CHP is not only opposing the Justice and Development Party (AK Party), but the EU, which has called for judicial reform in Turkey in several country progress reports over the past few years. Thomas Markert, secretary of the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe, reiterated this in an interview with Today's Zaman on Thursday, saying the broad representation of judges at all levels in the higher judiciary in Turkey, which is what the package seeks, will contribute to more accountability, transparency and legitimacy in the justice system in Turkey.

Markert said, “The Venice Commission is indeed of the opinion that a substantial part or the majority of a judicial council should be judges from all levels elected by their peers.” The ruling AK Party unveiled a draft package of constitutional amendments on Monday, which many people say are urgently needed in today's Turkey.

The package includes 26 amendments. The most contentious changes proposed are reforms to the Supreme Board of Judges and Prosecutors (HSYK), which appoints the senior members of courts. The HSYK currently comprises five judges plus the justice minister and his undersecretary. The government wants to expand this to 21 members and open the selection process to all judges to enable democratic representation.

Ümmet Kandoğan, a former True Path Party (DYP) deputy who joined the 2007 presidential election -- in which the opposition tried to block Abdullah Gül’s election --against the will of his party, leading to his dismissal from the DYP, criticized the CHP’s uncompromising and unconstructive attitude. “There is no doubt that Turkey needs a new constitution. … One of the reasons why the AK Party received 47 percent of the vote [in the 2007 general election] was because the people want a new Constitution. … It is impossible to accept the CHP’s proposal to let the next Parliament handle the constitutional change. Parliament is made up of the people’s votes. You are a party who would like to be elected to office with the votes of the people, but you do not want the president to be elected by the people. You challenge that at the Constitutional Court. The CHP has to learn to trust the people. For years there has been the understanding that the CHP + military = power, which is partially true,” he said. Kandoğan said the CHP’s stance shows it does not accept Parliament’s supremacy.

Speaking to Today’s Zaman, columnist Mehmet Altan said the CHP has long been known for its opposition to any reform package that would take the country further along the road to democratization. “They now want to broaden this opposition by lobbying civil society groups. But I do anticipate they will fail in building a strong enough wall to stop the democracy train in Turkey from steaming forward.”

“The views of judges at the beginning of their career, belonging to a younger generation, will then also be represented on the council. This should make decisions more acceptable to all judges,” Markert said. Based on previous positions held by the Venice Commission, he reiterated that the commission would approve changes that would allow Parliament to have a say in the selection of judges in the higher judiciary as well as the introduction of the right to submit individual complaints to the Constitutional Court. He also noted that the presence of the justice minister on the HSYK would not be considered an unusual practice in Europe.

If the package is passed, it will also make it more difficult to shut down political parties. The permission of a commission to which every party represented in Parliament assigns five members will be necessary to file a closure case against a political party based on a demand from the chief prosecutor of the Supreme Court of Appeals. A two-thirds majority vote by the commission, obtained by a secret vote, will be necessary to launch a closure case, which will then be decided by the Constitutional Court. Evidence against a political party used in an attempt to launch a Constitutional Court case against it shall not be used for a subsequent application if the demand is rejected the first time.

Changes to the structure of the Constitutional Court are also included in the package. The court will be made up of 19 members, three of whom will be assigned by Parliament. The remaining 16 will be appointed by the president. The members will be appointed for a term of 12 years with no possibility of serving a second term. One of the most welcomed changes the package brings is the repeal of temporary Article 15 of the Constitution, a move that will make it possible to try the generals who staged the Sept. 12, 1980 coup d’état.

HSYK’s accusations

The HSYK continued to criticize the package on Wednesday, with HSYK Vice President Kadir Özbek saying the package was “unconstitutional,” without concretely substantiating the basis of his claim. Özbek said the package was a strategy to take over the judiciary. Reading out a press statement drafted by the board’s members, Özbek said if the amendment is passed as is, it would destroy the foundation and roof of the state. Özbek said the package was a violation of Articles 6, 7, 8 and 9, which define the principle of the separation of powers.

The HSYK has been accused of wanting to cling to the power it now has. In response to criticism that the judiciary is pro-status quo, Özbek said: “We are most saddened by this criticism. All of us came here after starting our careers in the farthest parts of the country, working among dusty piles of files under oil lamps.” However, the package does not only include changes to the judiciary. The HSYK and the CHP have been silent on other articles such as political bans issued to politicians in party closures being limited to three years by the package, as opposed to the current five. The package also opens the decisions of the Supreme Military Council (YAŞ) to judicial review. The YAŞ decides on promotions and dismissals of military officers, and its say is final according to the current Constitution.

The changes also introduce the concept of “public monitoring,” paving the way for the establishment of an ombudsman’s office that is trusted by wide segments of society to resolve conflicts and investigate complaints.

The constitutional package also gives civil servants the right to collective bargaining. Decisions of disciplinary boards of public agencies will be opened to judicial appeal with a change to Article 129.