Ideas about Referendum
by
ADEM PALABIYIK*

The Sept. 12, 2010, referendum: The first step, even if not enough

There is a referendum set to take place on Sept. 12, 2010. The number of people in the nation that are going to vote underscores the importance of the referendum. Both the prime minister and the main opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP) leader Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu have been trying to explain to the population the reasons why they should say “yes” or “no” in the referendum. The reasons why people should vote “yes” are the foreseen positive consequences of the constitutional package, and to show that they trust the prime minister and AK Party leader, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. Interestingly a “no” vote is also a way to show one’s belief in Kılıçdaroğlu’s sincerity. However, Mr. Kılıçdaroğlu has greatly reduced trust in his sincerity due to his attitude concerning the Ergenekon and Balyoz trials and the feeling that he is under the thumb of CHP Secretary-General Önder Sav. This is the first time that the CHP has an almost non-apparent leader as a party that has historically been lead by “one man” throughout its history.

The possibility of a decision being made or implemented without Sav’s approval is still questioned. Why can Kılıçdaroğlu, who is proud of being likened to former Prime Minister Bülent Ecevit, not dare to do what Ecevit did? Isn’t Mr. Kılıçdaroğlu a democrat? If so, then what has happened to Kılıçdaroğlu? Since he has become the chairman of CHP, the party hasn’t taken a step towards solving the headscarf problem or the Kurdish problem, but instead has been in a rush to discuss why the retired chief of General Staff hadn’t received a medal of honor from Parliament. How can one claim that the CHP has changed under Kılıçdaroğlu’s administration?

This pluralistic debate on the referendum process can be seen as the sign of a democratic reality, but it should be noted that the present reality of Turkey’s democratic atmosphere has come to be under the current government. This reality should not be ignored. But unfortunately, as stated by Koç University instructor E. Fuat Keyman, Turkey has no magic moment in which democratic equality can be recorded.

Because of the unequal and unsuccessful way that modernity has developed in Turkey it is fair to say there is a direct connection between this and the repressive means used to force different subgroups to adhere to an official national identity. It is not surprising that only those who don’t approach creating social integration and harmony by denying local, religious, ethnic and cultural identities would see reactions in the long run.

The attitude of the BDP

It is clear that nothing can be expected from a party such as the Peace and Democracy Party (BDP) -- which doesn’t support a constitutional reform clause making the closure of political parties more difficult despite the fact that its own party has been shut down several times. Nor can much be expected from a party that secretly supports another closure case against their party in order to play victim. It is a party that demands a solution in the name of peace and equality, but when it comes time to solve the problem, it continually points in the direction of the prison on İmralı (where Kurdistan Workers’ Party [PKK] leader Abdullah Öcalan is being held). The BDP, which has renewed its call to boycott the referendum, is unfortunately putting the Kurdish problem on the backburner, using old-fashioned rhetoric, isn’t offering the Kurdish people a realistic vision and is coming off as a party which cannot avoid extremism. If they behaved democratically, then the people who vote for them would be free to make their own decision about the referendum. But the BDP has placed its voters in a difficult position and called for a boycott.

It would be fair to say there is internal conflict and distrust as far as the BDP is concerned. Why are the people who voted for the BDP not free to make their own choice on the referendum? Why has the BDP renewed its call for a boycott? How much can one trust the BDP given that it is using an approach similar to parties it has been in conflict with in the past? Do the sides have secret interest that overlap as sociologist Charles Wright Mills states in his book “The Power Elite and the State: How Policy is Made in America.” Exactly how the BDP will be able explain away this distrust to its voters is still a matter of concern. When we examine the BDP’s statements (the party maintains that it supports pluralistic democracy) regarding those who don’t agree with them in Diyarbakır, we can understand how sincerely the BDP supports peace and democracy.

It is necessary to look at the old rhetoric used by the BDP, which the party refuses to change, to fully understand exactly what kind of a transformation the party is ready for. Especially during such a period when the public is most sensitive -- both in a positive and negative way -- all steps must be careful taken to avoid hurting the well being of the people.

The 1982 Constitution, which was prepared by the military under the command of then-chief of General Staff and former Turkish President Kenan Evren and put to a vote the army’s retreat to its headquarters, was seen as a form of transferring political power to civilians. Despite the fact that this idea was possible in theory, it has never occurred in practice. But now we have a constitutional referendum which will truly require the military to restrict its responsibilities to its own quarters.

If there is a party that is clearly displeased with the government, this must be stated clearly and the reaction created by the referendum must be channeled towards the government. But if the people support the opposite, and choose to say “yes” as opposed to “no,” then the “no” camp must be criticized by the majority who approve the package. So there are two choices: one is the victory of the people, and the second is, again, the victory of the people. Emine Ülker Tarhan, the head of the Judges and Prosecutors Association (YARSAV), had said they were not struggling for “yes” or “no” but for judicial independence. It would be interesting to ask her if she really believes that there is true judicial independence now. How can she explain this personally to someone who believes that this is not the case? It should be noted that the Turkish Republic is a democratic, social and constitutional state which guarantees national unity and justice, human rights -- but which depends on Atatürkist nationalism. In a constitutional state the constitution does not serve the elites or the center but the people who allow them to step into their positions. The anti-referendum wave can exceed its acceptable limits, becoming phenomena that confront Turkey, or it can create a new political, social and economic crisis. For this reason, this position cannot be said to be democratic, aligned with the basic principles of the republic. And how unfortunate would it be for this to happen at a time when the political tsunami is washing over Turkey and the public’s will has gained power.