Turkey missed opportunity for new constitution, says Gül

Speaking to reporters about the possibility of a new and democratic constitution, Gül said: “This Parliament has missed the opportunity to pass a new constitution despite consensus among society on the need for one. I don't know how much they can achieve know making changes to it here and there.”

Some observers said Gül’s words might mean that he is at odds with the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) on adopting a new constitution; however, some of the government party’s members have said they agree with him. AK Party parliamentary group deputy chairman Bekir Bozdağ, in an interview with Today’s Zaman, said: “Our president is not saying that the current Parliament cannot draft and adopt a new constitution. What he is saying is that it needed to, but it didn’t. Unfortunately, Turkey has lost the chance of drafting a new constitution from scratch. ”

Indeed, when the AK Party came to power in 2002 a new constitution was a top item on its agenda. The course of the European Union harmonization process also made the drafting of a new constitution more of an urgency. However, the distribution of parliamentary seats between the AK Party and the Republican People’s Party (CHP) did not allow for this.

It was also in the 22nd Parliament when the Motherland Party (ANAVATAN), which had set up its own parliamentary group, proposed establishing a commission to ensure consensus over a new constitutional draft. However, the CHP said it would support the commission only if parliamentary immunity was eliminated. The AK Party said it would support this only if all immunities, including the immunity of senior bureaucrats, were abolished. The process was filibustered when ANAVATAN demanded that every party be represented in equal numbers in the commission.

The big opportunity

The AK Party won 47 percent of the vote in the elections of July 22, 2007, and one of the most important issues in its election campaign was a new constitution. However, the newly formed Parliament did not allow for a new Constitution.

Gül traces Turkish footsteps in New Delhi President Abdullah Gül, accompanied by his spouse, Hayrünnisa Gül, visited the Humayun’s Tomb and the Qutb Minar in New Delhi on Monday ahead of his official meetings with senior Indian officials which will take place today. Both Humayun’s Tomb and Qutb Minar are on the UNESCO World Heritage List. Humayun was the eldest son of Babur (1483-1530), who was the first Mogul Emperor of India (1526–30). Babur is believed to be from a princely family of mixed Mongol and Turkic blood.

The AK Party has 338 deputies this parliamentary term, but in addition to the CHP, the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) and the Democratic Society Party (DTP) also have parliamentary representation, which previously made it a perfect opportunity for drafting a new constitution as all the colors of Turkish society were represented in Parliament. To make use of the opportunity, the AK Party set up a commission chaired by professor of constitutional law Ergun Özbudun to work on drafting a new constitution. However, the draft prepared by this commission was never brought to Parliament as the AK Party didn’t do enough to support it.

A major reason behind the AK Party’s non-assertive attitude was a suit filed in 2008 by Abdurrahman Yalçınkaya, chief prosecutor of the Supreme Court of Appeals. The prosecutor sought to shut down the AK Party at the Constitutional Court, accusing it of attempting to undermine the country’s secular principles and install a religious regime. The AK Party was not shut down by the Constitutional Court, but the court imposed a fine, cutting the AK Party’s share from the state budget by half, saying the AK Party had become a “focal point” for anti-secular activity. After this, the CHP and its supporters said this ruling meant that the AK Party had no authority to write a new constitution, as the court had now announced that it was a focal point of anti-secularism.

Despite this, the AK Party and the MHP reached consensus on changing two articles of the Constitution to lift a ban on the headscarf on university campuses. However, the Constitutional Court overturned the constitutional amendment in June of 2009. It said that the change was an indirect attempt to change Turkey’s secular character, which is protected by the first three non-changeable articles of the Constitution. The Constitutional Court’s decision meant that the legislature’s hands were tied and that chances of changing the Constitution were as well. Although the Constitutional Court can only review changes for annulment on procedural grounds, this time it had made a ruling based on the essence of the amendment. However, none of the parties in Parliament other than the AK Party reacted to this. After this, the feeling was that the Constitutional Court would block any change to be made after this point.

The CHP and the MHP also renewed their bylaws in their 2009 congresses, and removed their calls for a new constitution. However, Turkey’s civil society organizations, including powerful businessmen’s groups the Turkish Industrialists and Businessmen’s Association (TÜSİAD) and the Turkish Union of Chambers and Commodity Exchanges (TOBB), have voiced their demand for a new constitution many times. Supreme Court of Appeals President Hasan Gerçeker also recently highlighted the need for the adoption of a new constitution in Turkey; however, the government at present lacks sufficient seats in Parliament to accomplish the task. For this reason, the AK Party has prepared a mini package including 22 amendments, supported by the Peace and Democracy Party (BDP). Although it is not clear when the package will be referred to Parliament, observers believe the general elections in 2011 will actually act as a referendum on the package.

Meanwhile, the president’s comments sparked discussion amongst experts in constitutional law. Former commission chairman Professor Özbudun issued a statement yesterday that said: “Of course, that opportunity was missed. I’m glad the president said this. A party that had 47 percent behind it after the 2007 elections could have done this if [they had so determined]. Also, there is this: Since we can’t replace the current Constitution with a new one at this point, we can at least make some of the more urgent amendments to the existing document.” However, another professor of constitutional law, Mümtaz Soysal, said it was inappropriate for the president to make such a statement. “The expression ‘the opportunity has been lost’ is wrong. The parliament is there. What opportunity has been lost? This is not understandable.”