Can there be a constitution without an ideology?

The government's frequent demand for a new constitution does not resonate with the public. This is because the public's agenda is not a new constitution, but poverty, unemployment, and the high cost of living. There are high rents. There is food inflation. 

Moreover, making a constitution is not very easy. Numerical and political balances within the Parliament alone are not enough. A broad social consensus is also essential. 

Why, you ask? Because of this…

A constitution is, by its nature and definition, an ideological text, just like every legal, political, social, and class-based text. It contains specific preferences. It is the product of a specific conjuncture. It has specific class-based preferences. Therefore, as some ignorant people suggest, asking for a constitution without an ideology is like asking for an omelet without eggs. It is impossible. Because a constitution is not just a written legal document of the state's institutional, ideological, philosophical, and political structure; it also reflects the state tradition. That is why the old guard referred to the constitution as the "Teşkilat-ı Esasiye" (Fundamental Organization) or the "Teşkilat-ı Esasiye Kanunu" (Law of Fundamental Organization), and to constitutional law as "Esas Teşkilat Hukuku" (Law of Fundamental Organization). 

WHAT IS MEANT BY A CIVIL CONSTITUTION?

Those in our country who want a new constitution state that constitutions are the product of coups, that the people did not make these constitutions, and therefore these constitutions are not civil. In the debates on a new constitution, demands for a constitution without an ideology and a civil constitution are immediately voiced. However, what is desired with this term "civil" is a constitution that contains liberal preferences and prioritizes the demands of big capital. The word "civil," as the liberal ignorant think, does not mean non-military; it means non-clerical. Therefore, one must be vigilant against a constitution that is pro-capital, pro-capitalism, pro-privatization, a constitution where not even a crumb of the social state remains, a constitution that views the citizen as a customer, and a constitution that divides the nation into sub-identities being marketed as a "civil constitution." Because words are not to be trusted. 

A constitution, which is also called a social contract, contains the fundamental preferences of the state. For this reason, it is ideological. It regulates the relationships between the state, society, and the citizen. For this reason, it has class-based priorities. The language of the constitution, the culture of society, the history of the state, and the priorities of the nation all contain a wholeness. Just as the 1961 Constitution was ideological and added new institutions and concepts to our lives (such as the Constitutional Court, social state, judicial independence, the principle of the natural judge, radio and television autonomy, the right to collective bargaining, and university autonomy), the 1982 Constitution is also ideological. It reflects the spirit of the era, the ideological preferences of those who made the coup (US-backed generals) and the author of the constitution (Prof. Dr. Orhan Aldıkaçtı), and most importantly, the classes and forces that supported them. This is natural. It is inevitable. 

A CONSTITUTION IS AN IDEOLOGICAL TEXT

Every constitution is influenced by the national and international conditions, priorities, and demands of its time. It bears their traces. It is clear who in Turkey would be pleased and who would not be pleased by a constitution that receives applause from the USA and a "well done" from the European Union. It does not please the laborers. It does not please the poor, the destitute, those without backing, or those without connections. It does not please the mothers of martyrs. But it pleases the "it's not enough but yes" crowd, the "ozurdiliyoruz.com" (we apologize) team, and the "yes be annem" (yes, my dear) crowd in the TRNC, the "the time has come" crowd, and the "spring in Europe" mob. It pleases the leftists of FETÖ. It pleases the PKK terrorist organization and the DEM Party circles. It pleases those who call a German a German, a Russian a Russian, and a Japanese a Japanese, but cannot call a Turk a Turk, those who say "Türkiyeli" (person from Turkey), and the circles around İletişim Yayınları and Birikim magazine. It pleases the "number-cruncher" republicans. Undoubtedly, not only Brussels, Berlin, London, Paris, and Washington, but also Athens and Yerevan would be pleased with such a constitution. They would be more than pleased with a constitution that casts the Turkish Nation out of the constitution, advocates for "equal citizenship" instead of the equality of citizens, creates a basis for identity politics, and opens the door to autonomy and federation.