The New Constitution trap

AKP, which holds a unique position in our political history due to its Constitution violations, has pressed the button for a New Constitution for the umpteenth time.

What lies behind Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's insistence on a New Constitution, when he was content with a constitutional amendment and chose the path of a referendum while transforming the Republic of Turkey's form of government into a Presidential system?

The memorized slogan that has never left Turkey's agenda since September 12 has been a New and Civil Constitution.

While the Turkish Armed Forces (TSK) have had their wings clipped, military schools and hospitals closed, and their voice stifled, they continue to produce justifications for a new constitution by still speaking of "military tutelage."

Yet, 31 of the 177 articles of the 1982 Constitution have been rewritten, 23 have been repealed, 20 have undergone fundamental changes, and a total of 119 articles have been amended.

Turkey, however, continues to make new constitutions one after another and use this demand as a tool of pressure.

In this context, it is useful to recall the dates when Western countries' Constitutions entered into force.

The US Constitution's effective date is 1789. England does not have a written Constitution text other than the principles established in the Magna Carta accepted in 1215, and is governed by centuries-old traditions, laws, and documents. In other words, it has a "customary" Constitution, not a written one. The Austrian Constitution dates to 1920, the Belgian Constitution to 1831, the Irish Constitution to 1937, and the Dutch Constitution to 1815. The German Constitution entered into force in 1949 with the establishment of Federal Germany after World War II. Spain felt the need for a new Constitution in 1978 after the Franco dictatorship regime, and the Italian Constitution was also adopted in 1948 after the Mussolini fascist regime.

Turkey's founding Constitution is the 1924 Constitution. It is the Constitution prepared by the original constituent power, adopted after the establishment of the Republic of Turkey State.

Constitutions are fundamental laws that determine the forms of government of countries, the powers and responsibilities of legislative, executive, and judicial bodies, the methods of exercising rights and freedoms, the functioning of the state's basic institutions, and the regime of the country in situations such as the establishment of a new state, for example, colonies declaring their independence, independent states merging or splitting and separating, or changes in political regimes (e.g., the USSR transforming into the Russian Federation).

Those who present making a New Constitution as a condition for democratization are resisting the understanding that seeking the guarantee of democratization only in written texts does not yield results.

In the period following the May 27, 1960 coup, a Constituent Assembly was formed with the directive and authorization of the National Unity Committee, on the grounds that it was prepared under the conditions of single-party rule and was not in accordance with the separation of powers, and the 1961 Constitution was prepared by going through the process of making a "new constitution."

After September 12, 1980, the coup administration set out with the artificial claim that the democratic rights and freedoms brought by the 1961 Constitution created anarchy in the country. Although the necessary conditions for making a new Constitution did not exist, the 1982 Constitution, which was prepared by the Consultative Assembly, was put into effect.

Both the 1961 and 1982 Constitutions were submitted to a referendum and their legitimacy was approved.

REFERENDUMS

In Turkey, a referendum regarding the Constitution has been held 7 times to date.

The first was the 1961 Constitution referendum, and the rate of those who voted in favor was 61.78%.

The second vote was held for the 1982 Constitution. The affirmative vote cast was 91.37%. The reality behind this very high affirmative vote is the public's fear of the right-left conflict and the threat of civil war.

The third vote was in 1987 and included a constitutional amendment aimed at lifting the 5 and 10-year political bans. The rate of affirmative votes cast was 50.16%.

The fourth vote was held to amend Article 127 of the Constitution to move the 1988 local elections one year earlier, and for the first time, the proposal was rejected with 65% "no" votes.

The fifth referendum held in 2007 included a constitutional amendment aimed at electing the President by popular vote, reducing the term of office from 7 years to 5 years, and holding parliamentary elections every 4 years instead of 5. The rate of affirmative votes cast was 68.95%.

The 2010 referendum is a popular vote containing constitutional amendments that led to the high judiciary being placed under political tutelage, changed the member structure of the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Board of Judges and Prosecutors, and eliminated judicial independence. However, the AKP resorted to manipulation to get a positive result from this referendum and included the amendment that also included the trial of those responsible for the September 12 Coup. Thus, it managed to get support from masses outside its own base, and the amendment was approved with an affirmative vote of 57.88% with the support of the mass that headed to the polls with the slogan "it is not enough but yes."

What was the result for those who fell into the AKP's trap of trying the September 12 coup plotters? In the case filed, there were only two defendants alive from 30 years ago. Kenan Evren and Tahsin Şahinkaya (former Air Force Commander and member of the National Security Council). However, both passed away while the case was at the appeal stage. When they died, Evren was 98 and Şahinkaya was 90.

The last referendum was held on April 16, 2017. This vote changed the regime in Turkey, the Parliamentary system ended, the Prime Ministry was abolished, the powers of the legislative body were clipped, and the Partisan Presidential system, which is a "One-Man Rule," was transitioned to. However, the rate of those who voted in favor in this referendum was only 51.41%. Election fraud, irregularities, unstamped ballots, and the passive stance shown by the main opposition party have taken their place among the pages of political history.

What is remarkable here is that there was no need for a "New Constitution" even for a regime change, and a constitutional amendment was considered sufficient.

As can be clearly seen from the chronology above, the votes other than the 1982 Constitution Referendum were on a knife's edge.

The AKP's preparatory work for a New Constitution began with the Constitutional Conciliation Commission established in 2012, but no results were obtained.

10 years have passed since the dissolution of the commission, where all political parties were represented with equal weight and full consensus was sought.

Why does the AKP want to make a new Constitution in Turkey, which is becoming increasingly authoritarian and entering a one-man rule with the constitutional amendments it has made? It is obvious that its concern is not "democratization."

Moreover, is it planning a change that will regain its strength in a process where it emerged as the second party from the local elections and its blood loss is increasing?

While seeking answers to these questions, it should not be overlooked that Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is continuing on his path in the direction he was in when he was still the RP Provincial Chairman and that he is making progress by watching for opportunities well.

Attributing the demand for a New Constitution only to personal reasons, thinking that it consists only of securing the Presidency in future terms, would mean underestimating Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's uncompromising Islamist ideological stance.

One must be blind not to see the clues that the Turkish-Islamic Synthesis Alliance established in the TBMM has begun preparations for a model compatible with Islamic countries in the process it started under the name of "Century of Turkey." The destination of a management approach where the Diyanet has turned into an unnamed Sheikh-ul-Islam, religion has been brought to a fundamental determining position in society, the country's sociology has been redesigned, education has been structured on the axis of religion and morality, the economy has been rolled off a cliff with the excuse of "nas" (religious decree), freedoms are interpreted with a "faith" focus, and secularism is limited to "freedom of belief" is clear.

The New Constitution is on the agenda as a tool for the legitimization of a fundamentalist regime change. Moderate relations with the main opposition, promises of ministries, are attempts to prevent the struggle against the wolf in sheep's clothing.

For the CHP to sit at the table with the AKP for a New Constitution is equivalent to denying its existence and its founding values.

The future of the country is more important than the votes the CHP will harvest with its populist and humanist political method. It is unthinkable that the softening policy includes compromising on Secularism and the Nation-State, which are the load-bearing columns of the Founding Doctrine.

Let us not forget, the New Constitution is a Trap.

This trap was set against the Secular, Democratic Republic!