×
Reform
Paylaş
LinkedinFlipboardLinki KopyalaYazı Tipi
Talking with an eminent journalist, the chief judge of the Constitutional Court has reportedly asked, "What’s going on regarding constitutional amendments?" The chief judge was apparently not expecting the journalist to answer the question as he himself answered it by saying, "As much as the content of a constitutional amendment, how an amendment is made is very important."
A short question and a short answer, but the dialogue summarized the difficulties Turkey has been facing in undertaking a serious constitutional reform drive. While it is quite normal for parties to have different priorities and each may expect inclusion of some different demands in a constitutional package, there is a consensus on the need for a constitutional reform. Besides the parliamentary parties that are supportive of a constitutional reform, most of the parties that are not represented in Parliament, the academia, NGOs and intellectuals of the society subscribe to the idea that Turkey badly needs to reform its Constitution "with a democratic mindset" even if it may not be able to write a totally new national charter.
The ruling Justice and Development Party, or AKP, prefers for some obvious reasons to include articles that would make it almost impossible for the Constitutional Court to close political parties or to change the structure of the court and the election procedures of the top judges in a manner to "control" the high court. But the main opposition Republican People’s Party, or CHP, prefers to start reforms by limiting the scope or by totally abrogating the constitutional article, providing parliamentarians almost across the board judicial immunity. The Nationalist Movement Party, or MHP, may support both the AKP’s and the CHP’s position, provided the constitutional amendment package did not include proposals that might compromise the "national and territorial integrity" of Turkey. That is, the MHP is against "Kurdish reforms," but the CHP appears ready to at least consider them though its support for such a drive might be rather limited at the end of the day.
Still, it might not be so difficult to make some radical changes and eradicate some important anti-democratic elements in the Constitution or other laws. This can occur if and when the AKP realizes that its ability to undertake any reform without collaboration of at least one of the parliamentary opposition parties was destroyed with last year’s Constitutional Court’s closure case ruling. The AKP narrowly escaped closure, but the court condemned it with a 10-1 vote as the focus of anti-secular activities. When the AKP realizes its incapability and replaces its much-criticized majoritarian approach with a constructive "engagement of the others" understanding, a new highway for speedy reform might be opened.
Toptan’s duty
Of course, the natural platform for any such drive must be the Parliament, and Speaker Köksal Toptan should be ready to play a major role as an "above parties" and "respectable" veteran politician capable of forging a "working group" comprised of not only parliamentary parties, but also representatives of parties outside Parliament and at least some of the most prominent civil society establishments, including those of the labor, employers and of course the academia.
Such a working group must be open to suggestions from all groups and individuals who would like to make contributions. Eventually, before it is finalized and submitted to Speaker Toptan to launch the legislative process on, the working group’s product of intensive labor should be offered for debate among the politicians, academia and through the media in the society. Thus, at the end of the day, Parliament will debate and vote on a text that reflects the "reconciled expectations" in the country, rather than obsessive evaluations of a compulsive and majoritarian political understanding.
Excluding the first four "cannot be amended and amendment of them cannot be suggested" articles of the current Constitution, the entire text might be rewritten with a democratic understanding. Turkey may finally leave the military-scissored Constitution that, despite all the improvements made in it since it was enacted in a 1982 national plebiscite, continues to remain a thorn for Turkish democracy because of the anti-democratic mentality of its writers embodied in its spirit.
Can Turkey do this? Sure it can, provided the AKP has the political will and courage to "compromise with others."
The ruling Justice and Development Party, or AKP, prefers for some obvious reasons to include articles that would make it almost impossible for the Constitutional Court to close political parties or to change the structure of the court and the election procedures of the top judges in a manner to "control" the high court. But the main opposition Republican People’s Party, or CHP, prefers to start reforms by limiting the scope or by totally abrogating the constitutional article, providing parliamentarians almost across the board judicial immunity. The Nationalist Movement Party, or MHP, may support both the AKP’s and the CHP’s position, provided the constitutional amendment package did not include proposals that might compromise the "national and territorial integrity" of Turkey. That is, the MHP is against "Kurdish reforms," but the CHP appears ready to at least consider them though its support for such a drive might be rather limited at the end of the day.
Still, it might not be so difficult to make some radical changes and eradicate some important anti-democratic elements in the Constitution or other laws. This can occur if and when the AKP realizes that its ability to undertake any reform without collaboration of at least one of the parliamentary opposition parties was destroyed with last year’s Constitutional Court’s closure case ruling. The AKP narrowly escaped closure, but the court condemned it with a 10-1 vote as the focus of anti-secular activities. When the AKP realizes its incapability and replaces its much-criticized majoritarian approach with a constructive "engagement of the others" understanding, a new highway for speedy reform might be opened.
Toptan’s duty
Of course, the natural platform for any such drive must be the Parliament, and Speaker Köksal Toptan should be ready to play a major role as an "above parties" and "respectable" veteran politician capable of forging a "working group" comprised of not only parliamentary parties, but also representatives of parties outside Parliament and at least some of the most prominent civil society establishments, including those of the labor, employers and of course the academia.
Such a working group must be open to suggestions from all groups and individuals who would like to make contributions. Eventually, before it is finalized and submitted to Speaker Toptan to launch the legislative process on, the working group’s product of intensive labor should be offered for debate among the politicians, academia and through the media in the society. Thus, at the end of the day, Parliament will debate and vote on a text that reflects the "reconciled expectations" in the country, rather than obsessive evaluations of a compulsive and majoritarian political understanding.
Excluding the first four "cannot be amended and amendment of them cannot be suggested" articles of the current Constitution, the entire text might be rewritten with a democratic understanding. Turkey may finally leave the military-scissored Constitution that, despite all the improvements made in it since it was enacted in a 1982 national plebiscite, continues to remain a thorn for Turkish democracy because of the anti-democratic mentality of its writers embodied in its spirit.
Can Turkey do this? Sure it can, provided the AKP has the political will and courage to "compromise with others."
Paylaş
LinkedinFlipboardLinki KopyalaYazı Tipi
