New constitution remarks from Erdoğan's chief advisor Mehmet Uçum

Presidential Chief Advisor and Deputy Chairman of the Presidential Legal Policies Board Mehmet Uçum, addressed the new constitution debates in his 'Sunday column,' which he writes routinely every weekend.

Emphasizing that national values cannot be abandoned in his article titled Legal Notes, Uçum stated, "There are efforts to draw a neo-liberal and liberal legal direction in the new constitution. Neo-liberal law ultimately aims to liquidate national states. Liberal law, on the other hand, aims to shrink national states and encourages internal and external transfers of authority. Turkey does not give credit to these.

The fundamental approach of the new constitution is determined by the principles of national constitutionalism. Because without national law and national judiciary, it is never possible to be a national state and an independent country." he said.

The article Uçum shared on his X account is as follows:

"There is no independent international human rights order; this has long been clear. Likewise, it has been understood that the claim of a supranational legal order is not real, but a fiction.

THE CONSTRUCT OF SUPRANATIONALISM

In the 1990s, the neoliberal wave—which claimed that history had ended, the era of the nation-state was over, a global order was being transitioned to, and Europe would become a Europe of small regions—also influenced the perspective on law. European Union law was called supranational law, and the European Court of Human Rights was called a supranational judiciary; however, the EU could neither produce supranational law, nor could the ECHR become a supranational judiciary. 

The EU Constitution was a fiasco. EU norms are not effectively above the national laws of member states. Member states are constantly forced into a harmonization process for this reason.

As for the ECHR, its character as a political body with a judicial appearance, which increasingly issues decisions based on political projects and uses law for the interests of the West, has been revealed. 

Moreover, a judicial body whose decisions are overseen by a condescending political committee (the Committee of Ministers) that views Westernism as the only truth cannot be impartial and independent. It is impossible for such a politics-oriented place to be a supranational judicial body. 

It is also not possible as a system. According to the principle of subsidiarity (given that the primary obligation regarding rights and freedoms belongs to the party states), the ECHR does not have a position hierarchically above the judicial bodies of Council member states under the convention. Therefore, it cannot perform hierarchical oversight like an appellate court; it can only perform guidance-based oversight. This proves that the ECHR's violation determination decisions are procedurally binding but not substantively binding for national judicial bodies.

NATIONAL JUDICIARY FUNCTION

In general, the judiciary is a function of sovereignty. In Turkey, the principle of national sovereignty determines the form of the state. For this reason, our judiciary is a function of national sovereignty and renders decisions on behalf of the Turkish Nation. The Turkish judiciary possesses a national character in an organic sense as a power of the national state, and in a functional sense as a function of national sovereignty. 

The fact that the judiciary is functionally national and makes decisions according to national law does not prevent it from being compatible with a universal legal perspective belonging to humanity. In other words, the concepts of national judiciary and national law do not exclude a universal legal perspective belonging to humanity. 

Conversely, the compatibility of the national judiciary with approaches that impose a Western-centric legal understanding—which encourages Westernism—as universal law is objectively impossible unless one submits to Westernism. This is the main reason for the conflict between many national states in the world and Westernism on the legal plane. 

Meanwhile, while it is considered normal for Western states to 'develop and implement national judicial policies,' it is noteworthy that some in our country are uncomfortable with the concept of a national judiciary.

Our need is to continue developing our national judicial policy. Western states such as the USA, Germany, France, and the UK have bad examples in this regard that pressure their societies and force individuals into self-control based on fear. Turkey can do better. 

THE NECESSITY OF NATIONAL LAW

Today, national states cannot abandon national law. Conversely, one can possess national law and a national judiciary without excluding a universal legal perspective belonging to humanity, and this is the correct path. 

By rejecting the deception of Western-centric universal law, Turkey continues to defend a thesis of universal law consisting of principles, values, and norms based on the accumulated knowledge of all of humanity. It also does its part in creating and developing a true universal law belonging to humanity. However, Turkey will never abandon its approach of national law and national judiciary.

There are also efforts to draw a neo-liberal and liberal legal direction in the new constitution. Neo-liberal law ultimately aims to liquidate national states. Liberal law, on the other hand, aims to shrink national states and encourages the transfer of internal and external powers. Turkey will not give credit to these. The fundamental approach of the new constitution is determined by the principles of national constitutionalism. Because without national law and national judiciary, it is never possible to be a national state and an independent country."