Özipek says civil society cooperating for reform on ethical grounds

“This is not a togetherness aimed only at the single end of gathering support for the reform package. This is a democratization process that very much relates to us and to our understanding of each other,” he told Today’s Zaman for Monday Talk.

Özipek, who has toured a number of provinces to gather support for the constitutional amendment package, also said civil society groups from different walks of life are trying to compromise and agree on basic principles. “For example, we have tried to establish an understanding that the state should be ideologically neutral. We are sometimes seen as adversaries joining forces for an evil purpose. This is not correct. On the contrary, this is ethical togetherness and moral cooperation,” he emphasized.

Campaigners calling for a “yes” vote on the reform package, which includes changes to 26 articles of the current Constitution relating to individual rights and freedoms and the structure of the high judiciary, say that the changes offered by the package will carry Turkey a step forward because they will improve the current Constitution, a product of Turkey’s Sept. 12, 1980 military coup.

Özipek spoke with us regarding his involvement in civil society efforts to support the constitutional amendments ahead of the referendum.

You see the reform package as an important step in Turkey’s process of democratization. Why?

Turkey entered its multi-party period in the 1950s, but this unfortunately does not mean that the country has been democratic. Turkey has been in a process of transition for 60 years. There have been ups and downs. There have been some positive steps in this process, but they have been met by strong reactions from the bureaucratic status quo. And each military coup has taken back the society’s democratic gains, slowing the process of democratization, but falling short of reversing it entirely. The reform package presents an important turning point for Turkish society.

What are the most important elements of this package?

Most importantly, the package involves changes to challenge the judicial leg of the oligarchic structure. The system, which we can call an oligarchy, has had two legs: One is militarism, which is the cause of anti-liberal civilian-military relations, and the other is the judiciary’s unusual position. By “unusual” I mean that the Turkish judicial system would not be acceptable in a democratically developed pluralistic society because it is too distant from the demands of the society and is not transparent. Therefore, the reform package involves changes to make Turkey’s judiciary closer to the systems in democratically developed countries. Second, the package will serve to normalize military-civilian relations, as there is an article according to which civilians will no longer be tried in military courts. This is a giant step forward for Turkey even though this is normal and how things are supposed to be in democratically developed counties.

‘Society owns reform package’

You have been involved in a referendum campaign to gather support for the package. Can you tell us about your observations in the field in the provinces?

Although the package was introduced by the [ruling] Justice and Development Party [AK Party], an important segment of society backs the package. Many civil society campaigns do not involve the AK Party. There are several new platforms. I observed some of them closely. One is a youth organization called the Sept. 13 Movement and involves a variety of youth political groups, from the left to the right. They believe in the benefits the package brings and also in cooperating to support it. That group includes someone from the AK Party’s youth group. He was so excited by the energy created by the Sept. 13 Movement that he told me he wished AK Party youth branches were that enthusiastic.

Why did they name their movement as such?

They say that although they do not see the reform package as sufficient, they are campaigning for it so that they can press for a new constitution starting on Sept. 13, right after the package’s expected approval on Sept. 12.

You were involved in the “Civilian Solidarity Platform” (Sivil Dayanışma Platformu) campaign group. Please tell us about that group.

It involves people from conservative, nationalist, religious, liberal and socialist elements from about 400 civil society organizations. There is no dominant view in the organization. It is based in İstanbul, but it has campaigned throughout the country. There have been some really interesting encounters. For example, I delivered a speech as a member of the Association for Liberal Thinking, and after me came Roni Margulies from the Revolutionary Socialist Workers’ Party [DSİP]. Although the political future we envision for society differs among us, we do not try to change each other’s opinions, but hope to engage in a discussion in a democratic and civil environment. In order to do that, we need a democratically developed environment. That is why we support the reform package together.

There have also been situations in which a speaker from a nationalist platform would say that they are fighting for a “Greater Turkey ideal” and that this is why they are saying “yes” to the package. When he said that, he smiled at Roni and me, as neither of us has such a priority. For me, the important thing is to be able to obtain justice. But these different ideals do not prevent us from acting in unison. We also discuss issues related to freedoms. All these encounters bring us closer together. Sometimes we are able to influence each other; this stems not from our own success, but from the success and strength of our ideas. When we act in such solidarity for a cause, winds of freedom touch everyone. Regardless of how the referendum turns out, these experiences have been our gain.

Referendum brochure published in Turkish, Kurdish

You’ve published your “What are we voting for in the referendum?” brochure in both Turkish and Kurdish.

Yes, it was published by the Institute of Strategic Thinking, based in Ankara. I occasionally contribute to their studies and we worked together to prepare the brochure. The brochure was first published in Turkish, but after its publication we decided to also prepare it in Kurdish in order to inform Kurdish-speaking voters, as well. Furthermore, because Kurdish has long been an officially neglected language, we felt an ethical responsibility to publish it in Kurdish. This was also of symbolic importance. There are two sides in this battle. One side is trying to increase freedoms while the other side is trying to protect the status quo. The pro-status quo forces would never put a Kurdish brochure out even in their “no” campaigns. This shows our difference. There are even differences between the campaign brochures prepared by the AK Party and civil society.

What are those difference?

The brochures prepared by civil society are much better and more explanatory. The changes to be made if the package is approved in the referendum that are stressed by civil society are more attractive to me. There are also a variety of “yes” brochures. There is also a difference between the “yes” and “no” brochures. The “no” brochures, which do not support the reform package, are interested in everything outside the package, while the “yes” brochures, which support the reform package, are interested in everything inside the package.

Do you have any examples of this?

The “no” campaign brings in criticism of the government over “large political ideas,” such as claims that “the government’s initiatives will divide the country” or that “the government is selling the country to the European Union.” But the “yes” campaigns talk about the content of the reform package.

What were your encounters with “no” campaigners like?

The “no” campaigners have a more rigid stance than the “yes” campaigners. They come and watch our campaign speeches, and we go and watch theirs. I don’t know if anyone changes their mind as a result, but even the mere establishment of this communication is important.

Do you think the “Yes, but not enough” campaign is strong?

Yes, it is a strong and confident campaign. We know that the approval of the package will mark an important turning point for obtaining democratic gains. It will not make Turkey a paradise, but it will mean the destruction of 26 obstacles in front of people who would like to leave hell. However, our job will not end there, because we demand a whole new democratic constitution. We will not be able to demand that if we do not pass this stage of the referendum. In other words, yes, we can demand it, but we will not have serious political and social backing for it. If this package is rejected, our demands for more democracy will have to be postponed. But, if the package is approved, we will be able to have an environment in which we can say that this is not enough. We will then voice our demands, among which are a more democratic solution to the Kurdish problem, more freedom of religion for both Muslims and non-Muslims, the elimination of the deep state, getting rid of the threat of a military coup, and having a state where the rule of law is supreme and abides by international standards.

Will you continue to cooperate after Sept. 12?

We, the campaigners for the reform package, would like to continue to press for further change. This is not a togetherness aimed only at the single end of gathering support for the constitutional amendment package. This is a democratization process that very much relates to us and to our understanding of each other. We have tried to compromise and agree on basic principles. For example, we have tried to establish an understanding that the state should be ideologically neutral. We are sometimes seen as adversaries joining forces for an evil purpose. This is not correct. On the contrary, this is ethical togetherness and moral cooperation.