[NEWS ANALYSIS] Tensest constitutional change in history of Parliament

Thirteen of these attempts yielded positive results, and 60 articles have been changed in the past 28 years. This latest attempt, the 17th of its kind, seeks to raise the number of amended articles to more than half of the Constitution, which has come to be called a patchwork because one-third of it has already been changed.

Heightened tension and heated debates were witnessed during previous amendment attempts, which were mostly carried out within the framework of the European Union harmonization process. However, none of the previous 16 attempts saw the current level of polarization nor did anyone work to prevent amendments from being passed by using Parliament’s internal regulation mechanism to its fullest extent.

This unprecedented level of tension was not even seen when amendments more comprehensive in scope and about more socially sensitive issues were on the table. An amendment passed on July 25, 1995, concerning the customs union was criticized for the possibility that its enactment would lead to the domestic industry being destroyed and that Turkey would totally become a market for foreigners -- a modern version of capitulations. An amendment passed on Aug. 13, 1999, which lifted the death penalty, made the coalition government of the Democratic Left Party (DSP), the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) and the Motherland Party (ANAVATAN) fall on hard times. The society, which suffered heavily from terrorism, reacted to the amendment as if it were an attempt to prevent the execution of Abdullah Öcalan, the leader of the terrorist Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK).

Despite all the sensitivity, Parliament passed through the period without tension. When on Oct. 3, 2001, a change more extensive than today’s package was made, no tension was observed in Parliament. When reminded of the atmosphere during previous changes, main opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP) deputies responded by saying: “This time it is different. The system is changing radically. The path to a presidential system and to dictatorship is being opened. The independence of justice is being destroyed.” Signals from Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, who said a presidential system may be adopted if the nation desires it, seem to disturb the opposition quite a bit. While the CHP, which has set protecting the system as its strategy, has decided to support changing 24 articles on the condition that there would be no change to the high judiciary, the MHP is having serious trouble determining its stance toward the amendment. Wielding only one argument, namely that enough tension has been experienced and that further tension is not needed, MHP officials say, “We can discuss the change, but it must be implemented by the 24th Parliament [to be elected in upcoming general elections].” Despite this, the MHP is having difficulty convincing its grass roots.

Neither the ruling nor the opposition parties see the current amendment attempt as only an attempt to change the Constitution. Both sides believe the change will lead to important developments in Turkey’s future. Stating that they will take the amendments to the Constitutional Court for nullification, the CHP claims this would lead to the opening of a second closure case against the ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party). While noting that the principle of separation of powers will be heavily harmed by the amendments and that the impartiality and independence of the justice system will suffer, CHP deputies go so far as to say that they are concerned Turkey might become a dictatorial regime.

Countering these assertions, AK Party legal experts say the change will end the tutelage of the military and civilian bureaucracy over the system. When members of the high judiciary said, “The executive branch wants to establish tutelage over the judiciary,” Prime Minister Erdoğan stepped into the debate and responded, “Through the changes, the legislative and executive branches will get rid of the tutelage of the judiciary, and the separation of powers will be completely achieved.” Participating in the debate, intellectuals and liberals criticized the parallel statements of members of the high judiciary and the CHP. They claimed that Turkey’s problems will not be solved until the caste system in the judiciary is dismantled. While noting that the CHP has become a defender of the status quo, moving away from its leftist values, modern leftist circles say the CHP’s attitude toward the constitutional amendments is wrong.

The top reason for the increase in tension is the lack of a common ground. When it entered the 2007 general elections, the AK Party promised to bring a new and civilian constitution. The party wants to go to the upcoming elections after changing the Constitution while the CHP has laid down the lifting of immunity granted deputies as a precondition to amending the Constitution and decided not to take part in meetings discussing the amendment package before this condition is satisfied. It did not send any members to a conciliation commission that was formed in Parliament in 2008.