It is time to acknowledge the fact that is is impossible to have or maintain a Kemalist regime in an “open society,” with a “market economy” and through the “globalization process.” If we somehow uphold these three attributes of “contemporary civilization,” we need a post-Kemalist constitution.
Imagine a constitution that declares “no activity that contravenes Ataturk nationalism and the Ataturk principles and revolutions shall be protected.” This clearly amounts to an “official ideology” that sets limits to freedom of expression. It is futile to raise questions as to how these principles can be defined as constitutional principles and who are entitled to interpret them since there could be no satisfactory answer. Ideological dispositions, not the rules of interpreting a legal text, will shape the answers.
The fundamental problem is that references to the Ataturk principles and revolutions blur the boundaries between the “ideological” and the “legal,” which makes establishing a rule of law regime extremely difficult.
Many complain that the judiciary in Turkey is conservative and ideologically oriented, as recently displayed with the 367 decision of the Constitutional Court. The conservative ideology of the judiciary is Kemalism, as included in the Constitution. It is time to build the constitutional bases of liberal democracy by drawing a proper line between the legal and ideological and to drop protection of a particular “ideology” (Kemalism) at the expense of the others.
Ideological states, be they socialist, fascist or Kemalist, have failed to meet their promises. They have failed to produce freedom, welfare, and security for their citizens. The collapse of socialism in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union heralded not only the end of the Cold War but also the demise of the ideological state.
To build anew or maintain an ideological state is practically impossible in the contemporary complexities of the global economy, social networks, and political interactions. It is a struggle against the current that risks confronting not only global trends but also the demands of the people at home. People want liberty, welfare, and security, which cannot be provided by an ideological state, as proven by the political history of the 20th century.
The modern state cannot impose a particular ideology on its citizens. In our age, it is not the ideological state but the “performative” state that is in use. The power and legitimacy of the state are not derived from its adherence to an ideology but from the services provided to the people.
Democracy requires a functional and performative state. If the founding principles of a state are informed by ideology, neither democracy nor the rule of law can be established, simply because constitutional order and institutions will be geared to protecting this or that ideological premise and not the citizens’ rights.
Such an ideological state provides the grounds for the arbitrariness of state authorities in the name of their raison d’état, which cannot be accepted by democratic measures. But for some in this country, their anachronistic power and privileges within the system are best served by sticking to an ideological Kemalist state.
The time of the ideological state has passed. If Turkey wants to bring itself to the level of contemporary civilization, it should abandon the notion of Kemalism as the basis of the state as outlined in the Constitution.
A constitution without Kemalism will be a prelude to a fully functioning democracy and the rule of law in Turkey.
13.08.2007
Imagine a constitution that declares “no activity that contravenes Ataturk nationalism and the Ataturk principles and revolutions shall be protected.” This clearly amounts to an “official ideology” that sets limits to freedom of expression. It is futile to raise questions as to how these principles can be defined as constitutional principles and who are entitled to interpret them since there could be no satisfactory answer. Ideological dispositions, not the rules of interpreting a legal text, will shape the answers.
The fundamental problem is that references to the Ataturk principles and revolutions blur the boundaries between the “ideological” and the “legal,” which makes establishing a rule of law regime extremely difficult.
Many complain that the judiciary in Turkey is conservative and ideologically oriented, as recently displayed with the 367 decision of the Constitutional Court. The conservative ideology of the judiciary is Kemalism, as included in the Constitution. It is time to build the constitutional bases of liberal democracy by drawing a proper line between the legal and ideological and to drop protection of a particular “ideology” (Kemalism) at the expense of the others.
Ideological states, be they socialist, fascist or Kemalist, have failed to meet their promises. They have failed to produce freedom, welfare, and security for their citizens. The collapse of socialism in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union heralded not only the end of the Cold War but also the demise of the ideological state.
To build anew or maintain an ideological state is practically impossible in the contemporary complexities of the global economy, social networks, and political interactions. It is a struggle against the current that risks confronting not only global trends but also the demands of the people at home. People want liberty, welfare, and security, which cannot be provided by an ideological state, as proven by the political history of the 20th century.
The modern state cannot impose a particular ideology on its citizens. In our age, it is not the ideological state but the “performative” state that is in use. The power and legitimacy of the state are not derived from its adherence to an ideology but from the services provided to the people.
Democracy requires a functional and performative state. If the founding principles of a state are informed by ideology, neither democracy nor the rule of law can be established, simply because constitutional order and institutions will be geared to protecting this or that ideological premise and not the citizens’ rights.
Such an ideological state provides the grounds for the arbitrariness of state authorities in the name of their raison d’état, which cannot be accepted by democratic measures. But for some in this country, their anachronistic power and privileges within the system are best served by sticking to an ideological Kemalist state.
The time of the ideological state has passed. If Turkey wants to bring itself to the level of contemporary civilization, it should abandon the notion of Kemalism as the basis of the state as outlined in the Constitution.
A constitution without Kemalism will be a prelude to a fully functioning democracy and the rule of law in Turkey.
13.08.2007
No comments:
Post a Comment