Justice Commission chairman says state will be rebuilt after referendum

While the Turkish people are ready for reforms, a tutelary mindset has manifested itself, İyimaya, an Ankara deputy for the Justice and Development Party (AK Party), told Today’s Zaman. He predicted that the constitutional amendment package would receive wide acceptance in the upcoming referendum, followed by an emerging social agreement to bring together all parties for a brand new constitution starting on Sept. 13.

İyimaya lamented the fact that for almost one-and-a-half centuries the idea of a Constitution prepared by the Turkish people has been discussed but has never been achieved. “All political parties have wanted a constitution that meets social demands and is made by the people. Nongovernmental organizations and civic groups have all asked for this. This was inevitable. Demands for a whole new constitution in which all articles are amended to meet the people’s needs will greatly increase. I think the new constitution will be of paramount importance in the 2011 election campaign. Those who do not come together today will say, ‘Yes, we will come together,’ at that time,” he explained.

When asked if a new constitution will stay on the agenda even if the constitutional amendment package is rejected, he avoids the question and says he sees zero chance of that happening. “It is almost impossible for the changes to be rejected by the people because it is the people’s Constitution, after all,” he stressed.

‘Bureaucracy is discovering democracy’

İyimaya argued that certain ongoing trials and tensions between the government and the military top command in August at the annual Supreme Military Council (YAŞ) meeting on the promotion and dismissal of generals are full of lessons that could be the subject of volumes of doctoral theses on democratization. “For one thing, there will no longer be impositions on Parliament that this law must be like this, that law should be like that in Turkey. The bureaucracy is also gradually discovering democracy. The tutelage that bureaucracy produces both hinders its own productivity and is a burden for itself; now everybody will have to go about their business,” he said.

Asked how bureaucratic impositions on Parliament, which is chosen by the Turkish people, are possible, İyimaya explains: “When bills arrived in Parliament, there were demands from the National Security Council [MGK] and military that it should be like this, or it must be like that. At one stage it came from chief prosecutors. This period is now closed. We will make use of the bureaucracy’s experience, but there will no longer be any impositions. There are universal standards. We will do whatever is needed. The bureaucracy will remain in its territory and be respectful of democracy.”

Emphasizing that the main principles of this new environment are transparency and pluralism, İyimaya said: “Thanks to this transparency, the dark powers behind the mass protests and unsolved murders on behalf of the state’s interests have been revealed. … Layers of democracy are being enriched and the ancient ‘solutions’ and formulas that the bureaucracy produced in the 19th century are becoming more and more clear.”

He stressed that in the past even one-tenth of the current constitutional package could have been the cause of a military ultimatum or a military coup. “But today that is no longer a possibility. There is no threat of a military coup, and the society has matured enough from a democratic perspective to not allow any attempt to curtail the people’s power. ... Under these new conditions, I don’t understand how a civilian dictatorship, which some have warned about, could happen in Turkey,” İyimaya argued.

“If there was room for a dictatorship in Turkey, it would be a military dictatorship, but there is no longer room for a dictatorship. How on earth can civilians set up a dictatorial regime that the military cannot establish today? In today’s transparent environment and cyclical four-year elections, the idea of a civilian dictatorship sounds very funny,” he added.

İyimaya also pointed out the AK Party’s track record of eight years in power and said the government was able to usher through a brave democratic transition that is unprecedented in Turkish politics.

Pressing charges for crimes perpetrated against the state by members of the Turkish Armed Forces (TSK) is almost impossible, İyimaya explained, stressing, “With the amendment of Article 145 of the Constitution, civilian justice is being fully authorized in this field.” He added: “You could not imagine making changes to Article 145 in the past. The increase of transparency, brought forward with landmark trials like the Ergenekon case and the revelation of dirty secrets, was so important.”

‘Decisions of YAŞ and HSYK should be revised retrospectively’

İyimaya also argued that some decisions of the Supreme Military Council (YAŞ) and the Supreme Board of Judges and Prosecutors (HSYK) should be revised retrospectively if the constitutional amendments, which include changes to the structures of these institutions, are approved in the upcoming referendum. “Revoking ideologically motivated dishonorable discharge decisions would be the most reasonable steps YAŞ and the HSYK could take. One prosecutor was severely punished because the chief of General Staff’s name was mentioned in his criminal indictment.” He noted that new laws to be enacted after the constitutional changes might pave the way to restore the rights of wrongly dismissed judges and prosecutors. “Both YAŞ and HSYK decisions will be opened to judicial review and the right to seek legal redress in the European Court of Human Rights,” he said.

İyimaya stressed that there is great irony in the way decisions are currently made by YAŞ. “Let’s say an army officer is expelled from the TSK because of his wife’s headscarf, based on Article 2 of the Constitution, which talks about the secular structure of the state. Then we see some generals who have attempted to stage a coup against the democratically elected government in the past. Arguably YAŞ should discharge them as well. Why? Because Article 2 of the Constitution also mentions the principles of democracy and the rule of law. The irony appears here. Are the principles of democracy and the rule of law lower than the principle of secularism? For that simple reason, there should be no double standard,” he explained.