First 'candidacy' statement from Erdoğan's chief advisor Mehmet Uçum: 'The Turkish nation should benefit from his experience'

Chief Advisor to the President Mehmet Uçum, explaining that social media is moving further away from being a space for freedom every day, said regarding street violence, "The state has made the exclusion of violence from social life a very serious agenda item. Never be hopeless. Do not give credence to those who spread hopelessness. Our people should rest assured that very strong steps will be taken."

Here are the highlights from the statements of Chief Advisor to the President Mehmet Uçum, who answered questions from Eren Eğilmez on Habertürk TV:

"THERE IS A SYSTEMATIC STUDY ON THIS ISSUE"

Even if Turkey's agenda is politics, economy, or culture, law is always one of the primary agendas. It is normal for it to be so in this period as well. Our President drew attention to two issues in Parliament on Wednesday. The first concerns individuals who have made crime a profession and those who have turned crime into a source of income. The second was his approach to the perception of impunity. Violence or criminal tendencies emerging on the streets are much more visible due to the influence of social media and the media.

Activities carried out via social media. The conditions we are going through, Turkey's own internal processes, the increase in people's reactionary actions, and many other issues. This situation is presented as a problem by President Erdoğan. There is a programmatic and systematic study on this issue. The matter regarding individual crimes does not remain as individual crimes today in connection with social media.

In a sense, extra-legal communication systems have been formed. Many social media channels, especially TikTok and the like, organize these crimes and even facilitate their communication. The results of this are the formation of a category of people who have made crime a profession. Organized crimes have ceased to be traditional, classic criminal organizations, though they exist too, of course. In a sense, an organized crime tendency is emerging via social media. Measures to be revealed in investigations and prosecutions against those who see crime as a source of income.

"EVERY RIGHT CAN BE ABUSED"

Individuals with more than 10 theft and fraud cases against them are being tried without arrest in other cases because these cases have not yet concluded and there is no finalized verdict. In minor crimes, for accusations of 2 years or less, arrest measures are not applied even when many crimes are committed, despite these individuals being people who have made crime a profession. This situation has been noticed.

Our President announced that work will be done regarding these. Every investigation is evaluated based on the accusation within itself; how can an arrest be issued due to other ongoing cases? There are solutions to this in law. The presumption of innocence is a defendant's right. A person is considered innocent until their sentence is finalized. But we apply a measure called arrest. This is a limitation of the presumption of innocence.

For people who have made crime a profession, for people who see crime as a source of income, a series of measures aimed at arrest can be introduced, elements can be added. This has nothing to do with the presumption of innocence. Every right can be abused; the legal order assumes this. The presumption of innocence can also be abused. The legal order does not protect the abuse of rights. Therefore, the abuse of the presumption of innocence can be prevented by developing detention. This was also our President's emphasis.

"THE MINISTRY OF JUSTICE HAS BEEN WORKING FOR A LONG TIME"

If society is complaining about this, if the media sees it, if concern has arisen on this issue, the duty of the executive, the judiciary, and the parliament is to take measures to alleviate these concerns. The Ministry of Justice has been working on this for a long time. As Legal Policies, we are working to develop law. All of these are issues that all positions of the state are aware of and for which measures will be taken. There is no such thing as a trend where a gap is forming here. The state has a monopoly on sanctions and punishment. The state puts this authority, which has been transferred to it by the citizen, into effect through judicial practice, preventing violence from reaching a level that disturbs society in an organized manner. One should be comfortable about this. There is a generally accepted saying; the state leaves it to tomorrow, it does not leave it to tomorrow; I can easily say this: the state will not leave it to tomorrow either. Concrete steps on this issue will be seen in a very short time.

"THE STATE'S MOST IMPORTANT DUTY IS TO ENSURE JUSTICE"

The problem of overcrowding in prisons is the responsibility of the administration, the executive, and the Ministry of Justice. No judge among us avoids this because there is an overcrowding problem. Relevant audits and inspections are carried out. Such a perspective never exists, it cannot exist. A prosecutor and judge do not act flexibly because there is an overcrowding problem. They take the necessary measures within the framework of their powers. One of the issues our President pointed out was the perception of impunity. A state's most important duty is to ensure justice.

When you ensure these, there is a safe life, freedom, and a true sense of justice is formed. The perception and practice of impunity. Perception is something that proceeds with the approach 'they didn't get enough punishment, they committed a crime when they got out,' even if criminals serve time. They committed a crime, received a sentence, and got out. The issue that the public needs to know is that this situation exists for crimes committed before March 30, 2020. Except for the special period during the pandemic, everyone who receives a sentence of more than 2 years definitely serves time in prison.

After March 30, 2020, the duration of supervised release dropped to 1 year. The practice of impunity is a much broader area. It has social, psychological, and legal dimensions. The Ministry of Justice is constantly working on enforcement law regulations. If I remember correctly, there was a regulation related to this in the postponed 9th Judicial Package. Steps will also be taken in the direction of regulation on this issue. The practice of impunity after March 30, 2020, is extremely minimal. The number of those who come out with a 'revolving door' without serving any time is extremely low. Who decides on the supervised release decision? The enforcement judgeship decides. Conditional release is the same. It decides according to the report they receive from the administration. There is a perspective study regarding making these practices fit for purpose. I believe that steps will be taken with the support we will provide as the Ministry of Justice and Legal Policies to the perspective drawn by our President.

"SHORTCOMINGS ARE ON THE AGENDA"

Demands regarding finalized sentences occur in every period. I am also someone who has been in prison. I know from there too. Especially for judicial criminals, for categories that call themselves 'victims of fate,' this expectation always exists. The power of amnesty lies with the TBMM (Grand National Assembly of Turkey). It depends on a law to be made with a two-thirds majority in Parliament. If I remember correctly, Turkey's last amnesty was in 1967; other practices are enforcement regulations. There is no position to evaluate the amnesty issue as an agenda beyond the demand.

The subject is already a subject that can be evaluated in Parliament. There are problems stemming from Turkey's non-routine periods. Reference is also made to the grievances created in the judiciary by the FETÖ gang in one period. We must be able to prioritize, to separate burning issues from general issues. Right now, it is a matter of rapidly taking necessary measures against street crimes.

Our rule systematics are largely accurate. It is also accurate in enforcement law. I am saying it very clearly; for the sake of satisfactory enforcement for victims, addressing the shortcomings is the issue currently on the agenda. Taking measures against crimes organized via social media is extremely important. Arrest is a measure, so one should not look at the issue as 'let's not resort to this.' The state needs to take this measure for the sake of those who see crime as a profession. The citizen has given the state the power of sanction and punishment. The state must also meet these needs within positive law. Everyone should rest assured about this. The statement made by our President is also extremely clear; necessary measures will be taken on this issue within the law.

"WE ARE FACING DIGITAL FASCISM"

I am saying it very clearly; the social media issue is ceasing to be a matter of freedom of expression. It is turning into a negative freedom space where personality and privacy rights are violated. It is turning into a field of truly serious threats against individuals. If these social media platforms are not brought under control, we are facing serious digital fascism. Turkey has to take serious measures.

For example, regarding children's games. It is being discussed in the USA. Banning social media access for those under 16. Many measures like this are being discussed. Our approach to the issue regarding social media is this; it must be removed from every kind of understanding of rights and freedoms. Today, social media channels are channels where everything is free.

Can rights and freedoms be protected where everything is free? Therefore, we have to bring social media under control. Criminal organizations are being formed via TikTok, they broadcast, they hire hitmen, and you do not intervene; can such a thing be? People who are in their own private rooms create an environment where they can open all their privacy to everyone via social media. The superior interest here is the protection of society, the family, the individual, and the child.

"THERE MAY BE TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT CLOSURE"

When there is a conflict between rights in law, there are two solutions. Can you reconcile the conflicting rights, practical reconciliation? The other is, what is the superior interest? Today, the relationship between social media and society is the protection of society, family, child, and individual. You guarantee freedom of expression in accordance with the law on social media, freedom of expression as thought. If there is constant threat, threat based on harmful results, there is no freedom there.

To turn social media into a space of freedom, we need to trim its negative side. There may be limited closure, there may be temporary or permanent closure. This business has a cyber security dimension. Apart from that, there is also the YouTube issue. Now YouTube media has emerged. You get a license to establish media, you get permission, you build a building, you are under audit, sanctions are applied. Do these happen on YouTube?

The state should do the same for this, whatever permission, audit, and sanction systems exist in classic media. All our people should rest assured. The perspective put forward by our President is the product of a comprehensive study. Steps will be taken regarding these. Steps will be seen slowly in these problems and they will eventually be solved. Today, no one can claim that the positive function of social media is above its negative deviations.

Because social media produces disinformation in terms of information, makes lies systematic, and raises moral erosion to incredible points, today social media channels are in a position where their negative function is very prominent, harming the individual, family, and children. Those who use its positive functions do not stand out anyway, and they are not effective either. After we take measures to reduce and minimize the negative functions of every channel of social media, including games, its positive functions become meaningful, visible, and effective.

ISTANBUL CONVENTION CRITICISMS

The convention is not a directly applicable legal text. Law No. 6284 contains more advanced regulations than the convention. It is completely baseless that these processes would have been prevented if we were still bound by the convention. Turkey should not discuss some issues through the lens of gaining benefits from current politics. Is there anything in the Istanbul Convention that is not in the law? In fact, there are things that are not in the convention but are in the law. Those who discuss the Istanbul Convention are not aware of the danger and activity directed at society and the family. It was exited due to some regulations that have systematic LGBT-I propaganda and alienate the individual from natural sexuality. Other countries have also exited. Law No. 6284 is a much more advanced law than the Istanbul Convention.

IS CHEMICAL CASTRATION A SOLUTION?

The castration issue is off the agenda. Regarding the chemical castration issue, there are regulations in enforcement law regarding medical interventions. It can be evaluated within that scope. Such topics are, of course, discussed in proportion to the rights of the prisoner. Such topics are issues where the state must do what is necessary as the level of social legitimacy rises. If a social consensus emerges, if the regulation in the enforcement law is not seen as sufficient, it can be done. These are issues that hurt society. When the demands of society gain a level of legitimacy, the state can fulfill their requirements.

"PARLIAMENT MAKES THE ELECTION DECISION"

Our President also announced it. The leaders of the People's Alliance (Cumhur İttifakı) also announced it. There is no early election in 2028. What is meant by early election is, on which day will the election be held in 2028? If I remember correctly, Sunday, May 7, 2028. Would it be absurd to ask if Parliament will take a decision to renew the elections before Sunday? Or if the President will take it. It is the President's second term. Why would he take such a decision? He continues to perform this service until the last moment. Will Parliament take this decision before May 7, 2028? It is something in the will of Parliament.

After the May 28 elections, an administrator from the CHP said, 'Erdoğan won this election, but we will defeat Erdoğan at the ballot box.' There is only one way for this; if Parliament takes a decision to renew, before May 2028, then the President becomes a candidate and then you can compete. Ultimately, Özgür Özel also said this, he said it could be until a certain date. 360 deputies are needed for the decision to renew the elections. Other parties need to manifest such a will. I foresee that this discussion will come to the agenda after the second half of 2027.

The opposition might say, 'We do not choose to compete with President Erdoğan.' My thought is clear, I am telling you for the first time. I see President Erdoğan as a national value and wealth of Turkey. There is no other leader in the world as experienced as President Erdoğan and as effective in world politics. You might say Putin, but if you have raised a leader like President Erdoğan in Turkey, where the democratic system is in place and power changes in elections. I think he is a successful leader in the country's leadership after Atatürk. I think the Turkish nation should benefit from the President's experience and inclusiveness. I say that the Turkish public and its representatives can discuss the issue after mid-2027.

My personal opinion is that President Erdoğan has been the carrier of this system, he has served as the President of the system for two terms. For Turkey to benefit from President Erdoğan's experience for another 5 years, the path to candidacy must be opened. This is my personal thought.

If a new constitution is made, it is a separate matter if the parliament opens the way for candidacy to current and previous presidents in that new constitution. In the current system, it happens with the decision of 360 deputies. Both the Turkish public and the TBMM can become a topic that will come to the agenda after mid-2027. President Erdoğan's candidacy again can be opened. This demand will not come from President Erdoğan, it will come from the Turkish public, from the TBMM. Whether President Erdoğan will use it when that opportunity is opened is, of course, his own discretion. If the opposition making the call wants to open the way legally, it is for Parliament to decide before May 2028 and for 360 deputies to take this decision. That is the way. The opposition ended this discussion. But for the opposition that ended the discussion to be able to act accordingly, it must support the decision of elections in Parliament before May 2028. I do not foresee this happening in 2025 or 2026. I think it will come to the agenda after mid-2027.

"THE PRESIDENT IS ALSO THE HEAD OF STATE"

We have a constitution adopted in 2017. It was called the Presidential Government System and we switched to the presidential system. In Article 104 of the Constitution, the title of Head of State was also given to the President. It is a generally accepted thing in presidential systems in the new system. In the past, in the parliamentary system, the President would oversee the harmonious work of state organs. Now, the President, with the title of Head of State, ensures the harmonious work of state organs. The will that represents the integrity of the state is now the elected will in the new system. The President is not only the president of the people; he is also the head of state.

In the new system, the people have become sovereign over the state by directly electing the President, in a sense, they have taken over. It is the obligation of the President to draw a legal and political perspective for all organs of the state. Showing respect to the President who holds the title of Head of State is a requirement of the constitutional order and its provisions. The respect shown to the President is the respect shown to the national will. National sovereignty belongs to the people. One of the forms of appearance of the people's will is the national will.

The people have voter will. Here, respect is shown to the leader they chose. There is the title of Head of State, it is showing respect to the state. It is to show respect to every President to be elected from now on. It is to show respect as a requirement of the constitutional order. This respect is that it should be shown not only in parliament but everywhere. It does not prevent the President from taking part in democratic competition with the title of political leader, nor does it prevent him from being criticized. When a President is elected from another channel tomorrow, he will use his democratic right. It happens with more than 50 percent of the votes. Every elected person has such a democratic advantage. Democracies have results that provide democratic advantage. There is no unfair competition here. If there were unfair competition, governments would not change with elections. Mayors and Presidents are elected and change. You elect the President with more than 50 percent of the votes. The fact that the President is in democratic competition does not mean that he ignores being the head of state. The President remained in the second round in the May 14 elections with the title of Head of State election.

"WE DO NOT HAVE A SYSTEM OF PARTISAN PRESIDENCY"

We do not have a partisan presidency system. There is no such system in the literature. The issue of the President being partisan is regulated as an opportunity in systems, it is not mandatory. Perhaps tomorrow in Turkey, a President will not use this opportunity at the highest level, perhaps he will not prefer the chairmanship. Because Erdoğan is a strong and different leader, and social and political dynamics are suitable for him, this is so. This system is a presidential system, presidential candidates already have to be related to political parties. They certainly want candidates to be related to their own parties. Even a person who has no relation to his own party can be nominated. Seeing this opportunity as a necessity of the system is not a correct discussion.

"ONE SHOULD NOT MIX ACTUAL OPERATION WITH GENERAL OPERATION"

I do not think the solution process is on the agenda. The threat regarding Israel was voiced by the President. Some issues are related to the general operation of the state. One should not mix actual operation with general operation. The threat regarding Israel is a threat that all institutions of the state are working on. If the state presents this threat as a perspective, it is necessary to understand the details of this threat. A closed session was held. Then a statement was made, saying that known things were told. In the founding of the Republic, there have been many opponents who evaluated some of Atatürk's approaches, let's say, through a political agenda. Actual politics can discuss these. Our most important need today is to protect Turkey's independence, unitary structure, and political unity. We call these survival (beka). Survival is the continuation of the existence of these institutions. If there is a threat risk directed at these, all actors and institutions of Turkey must approach this issue seriously.

"THE STATE DOES NOT RE-ACTIVATE A PROCESS THAT DID NOT YIELD A SOLUTION"

Mr. Bahçeli made a statement regarding himself on this issue, he explained it in detail. If the issue is risks directed at Turkey, I will take a step here to expand the scope, to expand the scope together. Mr. President said softening, Mr. Özel said normalization. Here, to strengthen the dialogue. It cannot be accepted to conduct politics dependent on terror tutelage under the roof of the TBMM.

It is the biggest problem that DEM and HADEP in the past have experienced. In no national state in the world is this tolerated so much. Mr. Bahçeli's approach, our President's messages are an approach to destroy terror tutelage. PKK made a statement, saying our strategy is an independent Kurdistan. Everyone knows this. Against this statement of the PKK, will only those outside of DEM take a stance? It is related to DEM finally understanding that terror politics is not a solution and taking a stance towards it. In a sense, it is a matter of saving DEM from terror tutelage and liquidating it from Parliament.

The state does not re-activate a process that did not yield a solution. A new version of it does not come to the agenda either. The state did what it could regarding the fight against terror. It almost ended terror inside. The issue here is in terms of strengthening democracy in Turkey. If an evaluation is to be made in terms of meeting the demands of the masses represented by DEM within this integrity, it is a matter of establishing dialogue and relations directed at Turkey's integrity. Negotiation is out of the question. With whom will the state negotiate? Turkey's current need is the need to further strengthen democracy, the need to get rid of the current constitution. The need to reach a new constitution suitable for the age. If Parliament has the opportunity to act as a whole, let it act. Turkey's geographical integrity can never be negotiated. The political structure and unitary structure cannot be negotiated. The concept of Turkish citizenship, the concept of the Turkish nation cannot be negotiated.

"A MATTER OF PROTECTING THE INTEGRITY OF THE STATE"

It was a process aimed at ending terror and violence directed at Turkey. There, Turkey faced serious betrayal. The declarations of democratic autonomy, trench uprisings they made were issues outside of that perspective. That business is also over. Turkey cannot be left as a divided generation to future generations. Turkey cannot handle this. The issue of standing up is a matter of protecting the integrity of the state. I respect the statement Mr. Özel made on this issue.

"IN NO COUNTRY IS A NEW CONSTITUTION WRITTEN FROM SCRATCH"

I explained the issue regarding our President's candidacy again. This is not a subject that our President will demand, it is a subject that Parliament will will. This is not the subject of the new constitution process. If you are going to give the president the opportunity to be a candidate with a new constitution, the minimum acceptance condition is 360. If you reach a consensus in the new constitution, you take the decision to renew the elections. There is no connection between our President's candidacy and the new constitution. It is a subject related to reaching a constitution worthy of Turkey in the second century of the Republic. To provide numerical legitimacy regarding how the new constitution will be made, it must be made with at least 360 votes. In any case, it is a situation that must be submitted to the approval of the people. Parliament can negotiate on the new constitution. There is no such thing as 'we will start from scratch and write the new constitution.' No new constitution is made by excluding previous experience.

"THE FIRST 4 ARTICLES ARE NOT OPEN TO DISCUSSION"

Can the first 4 articles be a subject of negotiation? Never! There is consensus on the principles in the first 4 articles. If there are objections, we will give the answer. I did not see any objection from DEM either. There is already consensus on the principles in the first 4 articles. How can we further strengthen the rights and freedoms system? Problems arise in practice in the new system, the Constitutional Court (AYM) makes some decisions, there is clarifying these. Let's strengthen Parliament, let's strengthen the audit. After all, there are many issues to be talked about and agreed upon there.

There are steps to be taken regarding shortcomings. In our history, we could not make a new constitution in which the people participated in the process. There is a need for this to have a real social consensus. There are needs for these rights and freedoms, for the expansion of public initiatives, for the establishment of the relationship between powers in a developed way.

There are many issues to talk about on the topics I listed. You cannot negotiate the Turkish nation, Turkish citizenship here. The new constitution has a base, a foundation. The base on which every structure sits is a strong base. That base cannot be touched. The new constitution rises on that foundation. The principles of the Republic, the principles of the first 4 articles, the gains of its democratic experience. On top of these, you build columns related to rights and freedoms, columns related to the organization of the state, related to democratic legitimacy, national sovereignty, and the security of the state.

DEFINITION OF TURKISHNESS IN CITIZENSHIP

The People's Alliance (Cumhur İttifakı) does not have an agenda regarding the first 4 articles. The citizenship issue is being discussed through illusion. Every society can have different characteristics. Citizenship is a right stemming from being a member of a nation. Atatürk said that the Turkish nation people who founded the Republic of Turkey is the Turkish nation. There is a main element regarding the founding of the Republic. It is the people of Turkey. This is everyone. There is the Circassian, the Arab, the Turk, everyone is there. What did Atatürk call this people? He called it the Turkish nation. Citizenship is to be a member of the Turkish nation formed by the people of Turkey who founded the republic. And that citizenship is Turkish citizenship. This is our founding element. We obtained citizenship with the Republic. Turkish citizenship is never citizenship based on race and ethnicity. The Turkish nation consists of the people of Turkey. This people founded the republic with cooperation and is keeping it alive. The people can be defined as a category of the current period of society. But the nation cannot be defined as a category belonging to a certain period. It is an integrity consisting of our ancestors, founding principles, those living today, and those living in the future. To be a member of such a nation is to be Turkish, this is the essence of the business.

"THE 50+1 RULE SHOULD NOT BE PLAYED WITH"

The issue of returning to the parliamentary system was one of the issues that occupied the agenda before the 2023 elections. Even the opposition had principles of returning to the parliamentary system in the constitutional amendment. It has nothing to do with democracy, they could not put forward a new constitution thesis. Returning to the parliamentary system is not related to democratic routine. There are two votes the people have obtained. One is the opportunity to elect parliament, the other is the government. To say that I will take back a system where the people have manifested their will many times is to fight with the will of the people. The people will not give one of the 2 votes in their pocket. Nowhere has the people returned from the gains they have obtained with their own will. You will either stage a coup or start a civil war. I think what the opposition needs to do is to make peace with the people. They can say, 'There is this many years of practice of this presidential system, we should bring issues that will expand this even further to the agenda.' Playing with the 50+1 rule is a serious problem. Politics looks at the issue to see if it is in the people's need and agenda. One should not discuss the issue of the people's 2 votes. Apart from that, develop the system. The opposition should stop fighting with the people about returning to the parliamentary system, it should agree with the people about the presidency.

DO THE PEOPLE HAVE A DEMAND FOR A NEW CONSTITUTION?

Since 1987, the demand for a new constitution has come to the fore in Turkey. In the approximately 37-year process, did the people express their demand by saying 'I want a new constitution'? When you look at the issue through the general will of the Turkish people, they do not make a demand by saying 'I want a new constitution.' There are two constitutions. One is political, the other is legal constitution. Political constitution, the people's demands for the system towards further, better, demands regarding the operation of the system are the political constitution. The people constantly make demands towards better. If the people's demands and visions towards the system for more development cannot be met with sub-constitutional norms.

If it needs to be at the constitutional level, it is a new constitution demand. Does the people want the right to a reasonable and humane life as a constitutional regulation? Of course they want it. Does the people want a ceiling price, even if it is temporary, against the harmful results of the free market? They want it. All of these are new constitution demands. The new constitution demand is the ordinary agenda of the people. In economic processes, the people were hurt most by uncontrolled price movements. If there were a constitutional obligation, ceiling price application would be made.

The people want human dignity and honor, human rights to be the basis of the constitutional system. The people want to participate in legislative processes, they want to have the right to propose laws. The people want to recall the deputy. This is a new constitution demand. The people have many more demands. Regarding social rights, the right to organize, union rights, demands to want their personality protected. The people want a new constitution with such magnificent content that those who want a new constitution to be made must create content that will meet the people's demands. Parliament turns the content I describe into a constitutional draft and proposal.

CAN THIS PARLIAMENT MAKE A NEW CONSTITUTION?

Our Parliament has been making constitutional amendments since 1987 and demanding a new constitution. Who is the original constituent power regarding making a new constitution? It is the people. Parliament is its representative constituent power. Parliament makes that new constitution in line with the demands of the original constituent power. It cannot enter into force without the approval of the people. Otherwise, that new constitution would not be legitimate. In Chile, a few years ago, the need for a new constitution was determined with about 80 percent. A new constitution was made, but it was rejected with 60 percent because the people did not want it. Here too, the people always have the right to make a new constitution, its technique is discussed. Parliament, which is the representative of the people, does this. In the text of the 2021 Reconciliation Commission, a provision was placed in Article 14 regarding the rules according to which the new constitution will be made. Now how is it made? A new constitution can be put into effect with the acceptance of at least 360 deputies, provided that it is not less than the rules of constitutional amendment, and with the referendum of the people.

CRITICISMS REGARDING THE CONSTITUTION PROCESS

The constitution is being complied with. Since the founding of the Republic of Turkey, the discussion of whether the constitution is complied with or not has been made. Actual politics can also develop some arguments through law. One of our political leaders had evaluated in actual politics by saying 'nothing happens by violating the constitution once.' I do not agree with the evaluations that Constitutional Court (AYM) decisions are not complied with.

Assigning the role of a court of appeal to the AYM and saying you will comply with every violation it detects is not knowing the system. They make interpretations according to themselves. What is clear is this, it is the same for ECHR decisions, there is an obligation to re-examine the file in violations. After re-examining, it either partially changes it or insists on the old decision, finding the requirements of the violation appropriate.

There has never been a violation here. Saying that AYM decisions are not complied with is a political evaluation. If the constitution is not complied with, the operation of the state cannot be ensured, elections cannot be conducted healthily, laws cannot be passed from Parliament. If the constitution is not complied with, the audit mechanisms needed in judicial processes are not activated. All of these are decisions related to producing arguments in actual politics.

"THE AYM IS AN EXPERIENCE OF TURKEY"

The AYM does not have the authority to audit the new constitution. The new constitution process will proceed bilaterally. While Parliament makes the new constitution by creating its own law, the current constitution will continue. The role of the AYM can be defined differently in the new constitution. If there are incompatibilities, they can be resolved. There is no formal and essential audit of the AYM in the new constitution. The AYM is an experience of Turkey, it has played a tutelary role. It must be restructured. It would be extremely appropriate for it to continue its existence.

"WE ARE PROVIDING INTELLECTUAL ASSISTANCE"

I am the Deputy Chairman of the Legal Policies Board. I carry out work in the board where the President is the chairman. I am the deputy chairman of the board that provides intellectual assistance in this process. We develop thoughts and approaches on the executive side. It does not mean that we do the executive management in the process. We are extremely careful about this; the powers of legislative processes can never be interfered with.

If you say it is setting the agenda, it means it is truly responding to the need. The friends who make these criticisms can make them, criticism is a right. In the presidential system, the President's ministers, chairmen, board deputy chairmen are assistants obliged to implement the President's program. As the Deputy Chairman of Legal Policies, I am obliged to produce policy regarding legal discussions and the operation of the system. This is my homework. I share these with the public. It is being discussed. In the presidential system, top-level managers are appointed and dismissed by the President.

They serve until a new President comes. Top-level managers do not have the opportunity to act autonomously. It is their duty to do all kinds of intellectual work according to the President's program. One cannot say you are doing something that is not your duty, this is already my duty. I never accept these allegations. Allegations regarding me were also brought to the agenda regarding the 3rd Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation. I have not met the friends working there face to face.

It was said that Mehmet Ucum is also in the process there. Of course, I express my opinions when I am invited to meetings. We are not always in the same harmonious opinion. Ultimately, it emerges, that will is ultimately our President's will. Can I put myself forward as a will? Who would believe this? I am in an institution that provides intellectual assistance to the President.

Does any policy I produce enter the program if the President does not give approval? Does it enter into force if ministers do not issue regulations on the policy we produce? We do not take an executive role in executive processes. But we do not refrain from contributing. If they say producing too much is a problem, I will not give up on this, let me say that.

"WE EXPECT NEW BOARDS IN THE NEW PERIOD"

A new decision will come out regarding the boards. Maybe new boards will come out. For example, the Natural Disasters and Risk Management Board had come to the agenda during the earthquake period. A board for youth policies may come to the agenda. Issues that the President works on with his own board around his will. We expect new boards in the new period. In the practice of the Legal Policies Board, we tried to fulfill that function as much as possible within the framework of both legislation and our President's instructions.

I am a witness that other boards also do very intensive work. As the Legal Policies Board and as 9 policy boards, we published a book regarding the 5-year period. We did the media launch of this. But not a single friend of ours said, let's look at what they have done, did they do what they wrote here or not, is it right or wrong. You see how important contributions the boards make from time to time in their own fields.

There are important points that our President emphasized in the presentation of that book. In Turkey, every segment, whether sectoral or civil society, can apply to the boards on issues related to their own fields. These are extremely important institutions. We foresee that they will become much stronger over time.

IS THE 12 SEPTEMBER CONSTITUTION IN FORCE?

103 of the remaining 154 articles are exactly the same as the 12 September constitution. There was a term change in 48 of them. There is no unity of language, no unity of terms. On one side it says respect for human rights, on one side freedom, on one side liberty. We are talking about a text that has aged in terms of aesthetics and internal integrity. The constitution that our people imagine, that the Turkish nation imagines, is a developed constitution not only for Turkey but for all democracies. If we move on to discussing its content, it is seen how burning the new constitution demand actually is.

Regarding both street violence and criminal organizations, the state has made the exclusion of violence from social life a very serious agenda item. Never be hopeless. Do not give credence to those who spread hopelessness. Our people should rest assured that very strong steps will be taken.

News Source: 12punto