The existing Parliament does not have the authority to draft a new Constitution

The instrumentalization of the judiciary by the AKP over the issue of Can Atalay—who was accepted as a candidate by the Election Commission and elected by popular vote—returning to parliament, and the subsequent forcing of a path toward a new constitution, represents the destruction of all the country's institutions and the darkening of its future for the sake of the AKP's survival.

Legal systems are not sacred provisions in the sense that they can never be changed.

Like any institution, legal provisions and even the institutions themselves can be changed, but such changes can only be carried out within the framework of general rules that have been filtered through long historical experience.

The topic I will discuss with you today concerns the political and legal chaos we are currently in, in light of recent debates.

I am not a legal expert, but what draws me to this subject is both that the situation is very clear to everyone and that the intended goal has a close connection to economics and imperialism.

To begin with, let us think about this, please, without even needing to dive into deep legal debates. What is the first act performed in parliament by deputies who have been elected and received their mandates following general elections? The answer is clear: it is to read the oath text provided below, swearing upon their honor.

“I swear upon my honor and my integrity before the great Turkish Nation that I will safeguard the existence and independence of the State, the indivisible integrity of the homeland and the nation, and the unconditional sovereignty of the nation; that I will remain committed to the rule of law, the democratic and secular Republic, and the principles and reforms of Atatürk; that I will not deviate from the ideal that everyone shall enjoy human rights and fundamental freedoms within the framework of social peace and prosperity, national solidarity, and the concept of justice, and from loyalty to the Constitution.”

Do the deputies who read the oath text not promise the voters who elected them and sent them to parliament that they will abide by the provisions of the constitution?

Well, if this is the case, how can it be that the constitution is not followed, or even that an attempt is made to amend this constitution—in other words, to renege on the oath of honor given?

Swearing an oath to the constitution does not mean that no article of the constitution can be changed or that no minor additions can be made. However, it is an indispensable condition that all changes made to the constitution must be in accordance with the letter and spirit of the constitution.

In short, no deputy elected according to the constitution and who has sworn an oath upon the constitution, nor even a political party or parliamentary alliance that dominates the Assembly, has the authority to change the spirit of the constitution, as required by the oath taken.

Let us also look at this example. Suppose that in a football match, for some reason, the teams pause the game, agree among themselves to set new football rules, and then return to the field to continue the game according to the new rules they have set—perhaps even with some minor changes. Do you think such a system could exist, and if it did, would it be reasonable, fair, or even acceptable to other teams?

Just as in this simple example, deputies elected as a result of elections held according to the existing constitution, after taking the oath they made according to the constitution, cannot change the spirit of the constitution and cannot draft a constitution with a different spirit, no matter how large a majority they form.

This is because parliaments that have come to power through elections within the framework of general constitutional provisions are 'Established Parliaments' that must operate within the framework of the existing constitution.

No constitution is absolutely unchangeable, nor is it impossible to draft a new one. It is naturally possible to change the constitution both in letter and in spirit, but this possibility is not at the disposal of an established or constituted Parliament; it is done by a 'Constituent Assembly' specifically formed and established to dissolve after drafting the constitution.

The absurdity that Turkey is experiencing these days is that a new constitution is being sought to be drafted—or even imposed—in letter and spirit under the roof of a Parliament formed according to the constitution. The constitutional amendment that enabled the transition to the presidential system, which has no equal in the world, and many other changes made to the constitution were also carried out by bypassing the constituent assembly rule.

Even without technical legal knowledge, we can clearly claim that even simple logic dictates that the issue of changing the political regime should only have been realized through a new constitution to be drafted by a constituent assembly. So, how did this happen?

Unfortunately, it was achieved by securing legitimacy outside of ethical rules through a public referendum.

In this practice, the public's view on the concept of a constitution and the distinction between state and government was abused.

The absurdity of the legal system in the country being instrumentalized and placed at the service of political authority has unfortunately reached its peak during the AKP era. Under current conditions, the forcing of the legal field cannot be seen solely as an original idea of the AKP.

The transition from the founding philosophy of the Republican administration, which was structured in the form of Westernization, to today's logic of Middle Easternization is a scene in the Western world's plan for Turkey.

The advantage this scene will provide to the West is twofold.

First, the West wants to keep Turkey outside of its own sphere, depriving it of certain privileges while making it open to exploitation.

Second, by using Turkey as an example for Islamic countries with its Muslim and relatively most Westernized appearance, it aims to push them to follow Turkey into both exploitation and the fallacy of moderate Islam, thereby removing Islam from being a pool of fear.

It is understood that the Islam-themed new constitution is not merely a preference of the AKP, or its leader, or even backward capital, but is being put into play as an effective tool of the policy aimed by Western imperialism in the newly shaping global conditions.

Western centers, which study nations and their sacred values even more deeply than the nations and their leaders themselves, having dealt with communism for now, are also considering measures against Islam, which they see as a new threat to themselves in the future. In short, contrary to what is thought, the AKP is not playing its own game; it is acting under the command of the West, having been deceived once again or by replacing FETÖ.

The fact that a segment of our people perceives this process as religiousness and strongly opposes it also leads to the masking of the West's plans and to the AKP, the darling of the people, being seen as achieving success despite a segment of the public.

What is understood is this: the massive difference between Atatürk and the incompetent politicians and cadres who have entered into competition with him lies here: while standing up to the West by Westernizing is the work of a heroic leader of great victories and his people, joining the West's game and entering under the West's command must be the work of narrow-minded politicians who set out in politics with ignorant courage!