AK Party and CHP still negotiating on reform package

One of the changes that could be made to the package is voting on amendments in the package that introduce changes to the structure of the Supreme Board of Judges and Prosecutors (HSYK) and the Constitutional Court separately from the rest of the package. Another possible change is introducing a model that conforms to the European Union’s Venice criteria for shutting down political parties that are found to have violated the fundamentals of democratic order.

The CHP has done its best to block the package from reaching Parliament since its conception. It has made a number of different proposals on the more contentious articles, particularly those changing the structure of the higher judicial organs and those making changes to the political party closure procedure. In its final offer, the CHP proposed that the amendment making changes to the HSYK and the Constitutional Court be taken out of the package and the article on political party closures be reviewed, bringing the number of articles it opposes in the package down to two.

Talks between the AK Party and the CHP continue, with politicians making their utmost effort to seal a deal before the first rounds of voting on the package’s articles are completed. The AK Party has responded positively to the CHP’s proposal to remove the two articles on the HSYK and the Constitutional Court from the package. However, in return, the AK Party wants the CHP to not appeal the package at the Constitutional Court.

Ergin: Possible to divide package

Justice Minister Sadullah Ergin said the AK Party has repeatedly stated it is not against dividing the package into separate parts. He said there were two possible methods of separating the two packages. One is to have these two articles sent to a public vote separately by the president, if they are approved by more than 367 deputies in Parliament.

The second method, Ergin says, is to make a change to the last article of the package, which says the package is to be voted on in its entirety if it is referred to a referendum. Ergin says for any of these to be possible, the CHP has to declare publicly that it will not challenge the package at the Constitutional Court. Ergin says talks going on between the two parties behind closed doors on the package right now will also be made public if the CHP declares it will not go to the Constitutional Court.

However, CHP leader Deniz Baykal addressed Ergin harshly yesterday, saying they would never make any such promise. “This is shameful. It is unspeakable. It really does not look good when a justice minister says it.” Speaking to a private television network, Baykal said: “They are hesitant now because the difference in votes is now turning against the AK Party. They can see that the tide will turn in the second vote. How can a justice minister tell us not to go to the Constitutional Court? They are overtly admitting that their amendments are in violation of the Constitution.”

Despite these statements, sources say it is highly possible that the two parties might reach a consensus this week. The two parties’ foremost need is to reach a consensus on Article 69 of the Constitution; this article regulates party closures. The CHP wants the party closure regime to be in complete harmony with criteria established by the EU’s Venice Commission. The CHP says the AK Party version of the amendments is a mixture of the Venice criteria and Turkey’s unique conditions. The CHP is also opposed to giving the last say on whether a closure case against a political party can be launched to Parliament, which is what the current amendment in the package seeks to introduce.

The fact that the amendment package article that seeks to restructure the Constitutional Court was passed by only 331 votes -- only one vote above the quorum for an article to pass -- has also caused concern within the AK Party, which has so far failed to find who among its own deputies might have voted against this article.

Venice criteria on the table

The criteria set by the Venice Commission make party closures a major exception. If the two parties agree on new wording, the reasons for party closures, which currently include violations of the “independence of the state, integrity of the state and the nation, national sovereignty, and democratic and secular principles,” could be replaced with other criteria such as violence, inciting violence, xenophobia and racism. The CHP opposes giving Parliament the right to decide whether a prosecutor can proceed with a party closure case, and the reduction of political party membership bans for members of parties shut down from five to three years. The AK Party is likely to agree with the CHP as long as the final version of the article is in line with the 11th article of the European Convention on Human Rights.