The Constitution and concepts

Once again, constitutional amendments and what I believe can be evaluated in connection with them, the "opening" (açılım), are on the country's agenda. Especially since 2007, eyes have turned to the constitution for solutions during periods when domestic politics have become deadlocked. Although amendments were made before 2007, it would be accurate to say that fundamental changes have been made since that date.

It is argued that the source of the problems experienced is the current 1982 Constitution. There are major differences, primarily in the system of government, between the text of the constitution in 1982 when it entered into force and its current state. Since 2017, Turkey has been governed by a semi-presidential/Turkish-style presidential system. While the original version of the constitution featured a parliamentary system and a president elected by the parliament, today the president, who is elected by the public and is a partisan, is the head of the executive branch. (There is also limited legislative power.)

There are concepts frequently used when discussing the constitution. "Coup constitution, civil constitution, ideology-free constitution, equal citizenship..." are words we hear often. 

When discussing any subject, it is necessary to use accurate information/data and concepts whose meanings have not been distorted. 

Let us briefly look at how these concepts are used when discussing the constitution. 

Since Rome, law has been based on the distinction between public law (Ius Publica) and private law (Ius Civile). Relationships between individuals are the subject of private law, while the relationship between the individual and the state is the subject of public law.

When one of the parties is the public/state, we no longer use the word "civil." As a concept, there is no such thing as a civil constitution. It is known that the word "civil" is actually used for a constitution not made by soldiers, but thinking with the correct concept is the beginning of consistent and correct intellectual production. 

If we continue with the primary intended use, the claim of making a civil constitution implies the following: a constitution made by soldiers is bad; one made by civilians is good. Therefore, it is said that we, as civilians, will make a constitution that considers the needs of society. Of course, while it can be defended as a view, when we look at history, there are good constitutions made by soldiers as well as bad constitutions made by civilians. Without prolonging the subject, I must also state that constitutions are mostly made through force, following processes such as armed struggle, wars of independence, civil wars, or revolutions.  

Whether a constitution is good or bad is related to its content; who made it is not important. 

Constitutions are not without ideology. On the contrary, the most ideological legal texts are constitutions. They are texts in which those who draft the constitution write down their worldviews and the principles of the regimes they wish to prevail. There cannot be a state without an ideology. The proposal that "there should be no ideology in the Constitution" is actually an indirect way of targeting the first 3 articles of the Constitution.

The frequently heard concept of "equal citizenship" is similarly used in a way that differs from its original meaning. A concept like equality, which no one can object to, is being turned into a mask for efforts to change one of the fundamental characteristics of the Republic of Turkey. In our Constitution, all citizens are equal before the law, regardless of any belief, sect, or ethnic origin.

The goal is for the principle of indivisible integrity with its country and state, which is included in Article 3 of the Constitution, to first be opened for discussion and then changed. Atatürk, with his statement "The people of Turkey who founded the Republic of Turkey are called the Turkish Nation," expressed that even if we have different ethnic origins, we form the Turkish Nation as a whole. He defined the nation.

The intersection point of the constitutional amendment and "opening" topics I used in the introduction of the article is the discussions held on Article 3 of the Constitution.

Whenever the amendment of the regulations in the first three articles of the Constitution is in question, Yugoslavia comes to my mind. Looking at the Balkans and the Middle East is enough to understand the importance of a unitary and secular state regime.

Turkey has a deep-rooted constitutional heritage.

We have a constitution-making experience that began with the 1808 Charter of Alliance (Sened-i İttifak), which we can consider a text on the path to constitutional order. From 1876 to the present, even with interruptions, we have lived under a constitutional order. We have reached the present day through revolutions, coups, and democracy. 

We are perhaps the only nation that made a constitution while fighting a war of independence.

Constitutions are, of course, not sacred texts that cannot be changed. When necessary, they are changed in accordance with the procedure and with a broad consensus that is not based solely on ballot box arithmetic. Daily political calculations, the necessity of making concessions brought about by being cornered in foreign policy, and amendments made to change the conditions for being elected make problems even more complex. 

The Turkish Nation, with all its members as a whole, deserves to live freely, with its head held high, and in prosperity. For this, it has more than enough human resources and experience to make all kinds of legal arrangements, especially the constitution.