The top court last week overturned a constitutional amendment that would have ended a ban on the Muslim headscarf in universities, a move that has been taken to mean that the court is positioning itself above Parliament as a legislative organ.
The move sparked protests from the ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party). On Saturday, Parliament Speaker Köksal Toptan slammed the court's decision, saying the judges had exceeded their powers. "The Constitutional Court made a decision about the content of this law passed by 411 deputies of our Parliament even through the Constitution clearly states the court can only carry out procedural examinations," Toptan said.
"The principle of the separation of powers has become questionable with this decision," he told a news conference. Turkey should discuss drafting a new constitution and establishing a senate in addition to a Parliament, Toptan said, adding that he planned to call main political party leaders to hold talks on the court's decision.
As a remedy that may restore the balance of power between the legislature and the judiciary, the AK Party, which convened its Central Executive Board (MYK) after the headscarf decision was issued, is planning to pass a new constitution that would regulate the "authorities and duties" of the Constitutional Court. If the AK Party fails to garner support from other political parties in Parliament, it may submit the amendment to a referendum.
Main opposition Republican People's Party (CHP) leader Deniz Baykal, who had challenged the headscarf amendment at the Constitutional Court, said on Sunday that he was opposed to any change to the Constitution or any other reaction. Speaking to journalists at İstanbul Atatürk Airport on Sunday, he said: "I ask everyone to act calmly and respect the judiciary. It is wrong to turn feelings of unhappiness because of the decision into a war against the Constitutional Court."
Drafting a new constitution may be a way out of the crisis, Muhsin Yazıcıoğlu, the leader of the Grand Unity Party (BBP), said. Evaluating Toptan's proposal, Yazıcıoğlu said, "What will we change with a double parliament? Will we have changed this mentality? We should speak courageously about the position and the state of the Constitutional Court. Will Turkey become a real state of law one day?
Will the people’s votes really matter some day? This is what we should discuss,” he said, adding that Turkey needed a new, democratic constitution.
Another option has been suggested by Parliamentary Justice Committee President and AK Party Ankara deputy Ahmet İyimaya, who proposes granting Parliament the power to veto Constitutional Court decisions on legislative matters. If Parliament had such a power, İyimaya argues, the Constitutional Court would be relieved of the political pressure it faces in difficult times. Such a veto power could serve as a way to resolve crises caused by the Constitutional Court. Giving the last word to a representative organ that was selected by popular vote would be the most democratic action, İyimaya says.
The Constitutional Court’s headscarf ruling will play a central role in a separate case that seeks to close the ruling AK Party for anti-secular activities, and ban 71 members, including Prime Minister Tayyip Erdoğan, as well as the country’s president, from belonging to a political party for five years. Turkey has a history of banning political parties, and the Virtue Party (FP), seen by some as the AK Party’s predecessor, was banned in 2001 for Islamist activities.
One suggestion made by the opposition Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) to resolve the current situation was largely rejected by the AK Party. MHP leader Devlet Bahçeli on Friday said members of the AK Party who are not in the prosecutor’s indictment should set up a new party that would act like a “clone” of the AK Party and move forward with a new prime minister who would replace Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. Nihat Ergün, deputy head of the AK Party’s parliamentary group, replied to Bahçeli’s cloning idea on Saturday, saying it was not right for him to interfere with what Ergün said was the AK Party’s own affair. Another deputy leader of the parliamentary group, Sadullah Ergin, dismissed the cloning option, saying he did not believe their party would be shut down.
One senior AK Party source dismissed the suggestion rather fiercely, accusing Bahçeli of being part of the plot to “separate the head of the AK Party from its body.” The core motive of the Constitutional Court’s closure case was to do away with Erdoğan, the same source said.
Yıldırım Akbulut, a former prime minister and a law expert, offered Today’s Zaman his opinion on the parliamentary speaker’s idea of re-implementing a senate. “Many democracies have an upper house. It could be a solution, though only in the long term. A senate would act as a second filter for newly passed laws. It could work to make sure that laws are compatible with the Constitution and minimize the risk of complete cancellation of legislation. It could even completely get rid of the need to take matters to the Constitutional Court,” Akbulut said in defense of Toptan’s proposal.
However, another legal expert, Serap Yazıcı, an associate professor at İstanbul Bilgi University, said returning to a bicameral structure would only lighten the workload of the Constitutional Court. “I don’t agree with Toptan. A second chamber wouldn’t contribute to solving the problem; it would only work to stall the legislative process and increase tension,” she stated.
MHP Deputy Chairman Mehmet Şandır said something was missing from Toptan’s explanation of his proposal to introduce an upper house. “He should explain whether he offers this as a new system, or only as a reaction to the decision of the Constitutional Court. We don’t have a place for a senate in the current system. That is a better structure for another system. We will talk with Toptan in detail. If the proposal to establish a senate has the sole purpose of being a precaution against the Constitutional Court putting itself in the place of Parliament, it won’t be acceptable.”
Toptan ordered senate research
The weekend’s discussion showed that for Toptan the idea of establishing an upper house was not an idea that occurred on a whim after the court decision. A closer look at last year’s parliamentary documents indicates that in December 2007 Toptan ordered a report on bicameral legislatures. The parliament’s research center prepared a report, according to which most bicameral legislatures are found in countries with presidential systems, whereas only a few parliamentary systems have legislatures with two houses. The possibility of a transition to a presidential system has also been a major issue of debate in Turkey since the late ‘80s.
Turkey’s previous bicameral system was established by the Constitution of 1961, the product of the military coup of May 27, 1960, and it was abolished by another military coup, staged by Gen. Kenan Evren on Sept. 12, 1980. The bicameral parliament featured a regular parliament and a republican senate. Members of the senate would include some elected by the people, some appointed by the president and “natural members,” who would serve lifetime appointments in the senate while the other members would hold office for six years. Legislation passed by the regular parliament had to be approved by the republican senate. Another option has been suggested by Parliamentary Justice Committee President and AK Party Ankara deputy Ahmet İyimaya, who proposes granting Parliament the power to veto Constitutional Court decisions on legislative matters. If Parliament had such a power, İyimaya argues, the Constitutional Court would be relieved of the political pressure it faces in difficult times. Such a veto power could serve as a way to resolve crises caused by the Constitutional Court. Giving the last word to a representative organ that was selected by popular vote would be the most democratic action, İyimaya says.
The Constitutional Court’s headscarf ruling will play a central role in a separate case that seeks to close the ruling AK Party for anti-secular activities, and ban 71 members, including Prime Minister Tayyip Erdoğan, as well as the country’s president, from belonging to a political party for five years. Turkey has a history of banning political parties, and the Virtue Party (FP), seen by some as the AK Party’s predecessor, was banned in 2001 for Islamist activities.
One suggestion made by the opposition Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) to resolve the current situation was largely rejected by the AK Party. MHP leader Devlet Bahçeli on Friday said members of the AK Party who are not in the prosecutor’s indictment should set up a new party that would act like a “clone” of the AK Party and move forward with a new prime minister who would replace Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. Nihat Ergün, deputy head of the AK Party’s parliamentary group, replied to Bahçeli’s cloning idea on Saturday, saying it was not right for him to interfere with what Ergün said was the AK Party’s own affair. Another deputy leader of the parliamentary group, Sadullah Ergin, dismissed the cloning option, saying he did not believe their party would be shut down.
One senior AK Party source dismissed the suggestion rather fiercely, accusing Bahçeli of being part of the plot to “separate the head of the AK Party from its body.” The core motive of the Constitutional Court’s closure case was to do away with Erdoğan, the same source said.
Yıldırım Akbulut, a former prime minister and a law expert, offered Today’s Zaman his opinion on the parliamentary speaker’s idea of re-implementing a senate. “Many democracies have an upper house. It could be a solution, though only in the long term. A senate would act as a second filter for newly passed laws. It could work to make sure that laws are compatible with the Constitution and minimize the risk of complete cancellation of legislation. It could even completely get rid of the need to take matters to the Constitutional Court,” Akbulut said in defense of Toptan’s proposal.
However, another legal expert, Serap Yazıcı, an associate professor at İstanbul Bilgi University, said returning to a bicameral structure would only lighten the workload of the Constitutional Court. “I don’t agree with Toptan. A second chamber wouldn’t contribute to solving the problem; it would only work to stall the legislative process and increase tension,” she stated.
MHP Deputy Chairman Mehmet Şandır said something was missing from Toptan’s explanation of his proposal to introduce an upper house. “He should explain whether he offers this as a new system, or only as a reaction to the decision of the Constitutional Court. We don’t have a place for a senate in the current system. That is a better structure for another system. We will talk with Toptan in detail. If the proposal to establish a senate has the sole purpose of being a precaution against the Constitutional Court putting itself in the place of Parliament, it won’t be acceptable.”
Toptan ordered senate research
The weekend’s discussion showed that for Toptan the idea of establishing an upper house was not an idea that occurred on a whim after the court decision. A closer look at last year’s parliamentary documents indicates that in December 2007 Toptan ordered a report on bicameral legislatures. The parliament’s research center prepared a report, according to which most bicameral legislatures are found in countries with presidential systems, whereas only a few parliamentary systems have legislatures with two houses. The possibility of a transition to a presidential system has also been a major issue of debate in Turkey since the late ‘80s.
Turkey’s previous bicameral system was established by the Constitution of 1961, the product of the military coup of May 27, 1960, and it was abolished by another military coup, staged by Gen. Kenan Evren on Sept. 12, 1980. The bicameral parliament featured a regular parliament and a republican senate. Members of the senate would include some elected by the people, some appointed by the president and “natural members,” who would serve lifetime appointments in the senate while the other members would hold office for six years. Legislation passed by the regular parliament had to be approved by the republican senate.
Benzer Haberler 
Politics
