The debate on a new constitution requires a comprehensive questioning of the legacy of the military regime. A democratic regime cannot be thoroughly established in a constitutional order that constantly reminds us of the constituting power of the military.
In its original form, this Constitution had articles justifying a military coup, imposing unlawful bans on political party leaders beside its illiberal articles limiting freedom of expression and association. It is time for this country to prove that it is capable of making a democratic and liberal constitution both in content and the way it is made.
The 1982 constitution was drafted by a commission of the Advisory Council, the members of which were appointed by the junta named the National Security Council. The authority to finalize the draft before going for a referendum belonged to the junta. A referendum was held on Nov. 6, 1982, approving the constitution and simultaneously electing Gen. Kenan Evren, the leader of the junta as president. Other junta members maintained a “constitutional” position within the system as members of a Presidential Council. The result was a constitution carrying the junta structure and its priorities well into the era of the civilian government after 1983.
Neither the process of making the constitution nor the referendum took place in a free atmosphere. All was done under a military government when hundreds of thousands were under detention, censorship was in place and political debates were totally banned. What kind of constitution can one get in such circumstances?
Retaining the 1982 constitution demonstrates our inability to face the past as if we are destined to carry the burden of the past. We have been living with our past sins, yet pretending that we have overcome them. Not really. Not until we put an end to the legacy of the 1980 military regime.
We have not been able to confess and start with a new beginning, but our fellow Greeks have. They brought the colonels to justice and put them in prison, opening the way for the consolidation of Greek democracy and eventual membership in the EU. It took only seven years to achieve this, simply because they had the courage to face reality and change it.
What about us? We have pretended that by the end of 1983 democracy was restored without questioning the constitutional order established according to the needs and priorities of the military autocrats. The junta effectively survived until 1989. The first significant change in the constitution could only be introduced in 1995 that slightly broadened the sphere of political participation. And even then, it was not us who initiated the process with an understanding to eliminate at least some remaining elements of the military regime but rather, it was the EU. The European Parliament declared it would not approve the customs union with Turkey without some constitutional reform.
Thus it is due to the EU that a new process to amend the constitution was started. And since then almost half of the articles in the constitution were changed -- all motivated or required by the EU process. Where has been our will to establish real democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights? Even many reformists did not have the guts to call for democracy and human rights for its own sake but instead tried to justify their wish by referring to the EU membership requirement.
Now the emerging will and consensus for a new constitution is a rare opportunity to show that the “constituting” will in this country belong to people and not to the military.
17.09.2007
In its original form, this Constitution had articles justifying a military coup, imposing unlawful bans on political party leaders beside its illiberal articles limiting freedom of expression and association. It is time for this country to prove that it is capable of making a democratic and liberal constitution both in content and the way it is made.
The 1982 constitution was drafted by a commission of the Advisory Council, the members of which were appointed by the junta named the National Security Council. The authority to finalize the draft before going for a referendum belonged to the junta. A referendum was held on Nov. 6, 1982, approving the constitution and simultaneously electing Gen. Kenan Evren, the leader of the junta as president. Other junta members maintained a “constitutional” position within the system as members of a Presidential Council. The result was a constitution carrying the junta structure and its priorities well into the era of the civilian government after 1983.
Neither the process of making the constitution nor the referendum took place in a free atmosphere. All was done under a military government when hundreds of thousands were under detention, censorship was in place and political debates were totally banned. What kind of constitution can one get in such circumstances?
Retaining the 1982 constitution demonstrates our inability to face the past as if we are destined to carry the burden of the past. We have been living with our past sins, yet pretending that we have overcome them. Not really. Not until we put an end to the legacy of the 1980 military regime.
We have not been able to confess and start with a new beginning, but our fellow Greeks have. They brought the colonels to justice and put them in prison, opening the way for the consolidation of Greek democracy and eventual membership in the EU. It took only seven years to achieve this, simply because they had the courage to face reality and change it.
What about us? We have pretended that by the end of 1983 democracy was restored without questioning the constitutional order established according to the needs and priorities of the military autocrats. The junta effectively survived until 1989. The first significant change in the constitution could only be introduced in 1995 that slightly broadened the sphere of political participation. And even then, it was not us who initiated the process with an understanding to eliminate at least some remaining elements of the military regime but rather, it was the EU. The European Parliament declared it would not approve the customs union with Turkey without some constitutional reform.
Thus it is due to the EU that a new process to amend the constitution was started. And since then almost half of the articles in the constitution were changed -- all motivated or required by the EU process. Where has been our will to establish real democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights? Even many reformists did not have the guts to call for democracy and human rights for its own sake but instead tried to justify their wish by referring to the EU membership requirement.
Now the emerging will and consensus for a new constitution is a rare opportunity to show that the “constituting” will in this country belong to people and not to the military.
17.09.2007
No comments:
Post a Comment