The Turkish Parliament passed changes to two articles of the Constitution last week. The amended constitutional articles underline equality before the law and the right to education and are meant to remove a headscarf ban currently enforced on university campuses. It, however, sparked a heated debate not only about secularism but also about the way in which constitutional amendments are carried out. One criticism was that the amendments are not carried out by "consensus." Insistence on consensus reminded me of another constitutional amendment some 70 years ago.
In 1937 the six principles of the Republican People's Party (CHP) were imported into the constitution. The party principles of nationalism, republicanism, statism, secularism, populism and revolutionism became the state's principles. It was the final step for the marriage between the state and the party. By this constitutional change, a simple single-party rule had turned into a model very much reminiscent of European fascism of the time. Along with the integration of the party's principles into the constitutional order the secretary-general of the party was appointed the interior minister, the provincial party leaders became the governors.
The "consensus" in the parliamentary session on the amendment proposed by Prime Minister İsmet İnönü was 100 percent. Members of Parliament taking part in the vote in 1937 numbered 333 and those who endorsed the amendment totaled 333. This is I think what some people today call "consensus." What they do not know is that it was not "democratic consensus" but "consensus by force" under the authoritarian control of Parliament by the party. In any event, it was not a Parliament freely elected directly by the people but rather one appointed by the party. Many of those "parliamentarians" later said that they had in fact never been to cities that they were supposed to represent.
The proposal underlined that a constitution should define the features of the republic and suggested inserting the six arrows of the party into the constitution to define the state.
During the proceedings the first speech was delivered by Şükrü Kaya, interior minister, who argued that the "history of humanity started with the Turks, if there were no Turks there would be no history and no civilization" (to applauses and bravos from Parliament). Framed with such absurd arguments the party principles turned into state principles in February 1937.
Speaking during the "debate" in Parliament, Şemsettin Günaltay, the head of the Constitutional Committee and later prime minister, drew the limits of opposing views. In response to questions on whether opposing views to those principles could be expressed, Günaltay said: "Once these principles are enacted as the constitutional principles, it will be questioned whether counter-views could be expressed. For example, would a liberal defend the principles of liberalism or a communist advocate communism? No, they will and could not defend opposing views. As any act contrary to the constitution is a crime, opposition to these principles will also be considered a crime" (to applause and bravos).
Recep Peker, former secretary-general of the party and an architect of the state-party merger, stated that "all citizens shall believe in these principles, they shall all love and obey these principles, creating national harmony."
This example displays the mindset of Jacobin republicans in the 1930s. There was no room for different political views in their minds. The difficulty for Turkish democracy is this "founding Jacobin mindset" that did not allow democratic plurality. When the Democrat Party (DP) was formed in January 1946 under new circumstances following the end of World War II, it had to declare its loyalty to the constitution, including Article 2, which was, in fact, the principles of the opposing CHP. This was not only ironic but also reflective of mental and constitutional obstacles to developing a real democracy in the years ahead. Imagine a political party that formed the state and the nation according to its own principles from the top down then with a transition to multi-party politics after 1950 forced to seek the consent and approval of the people. It has always been difficult for those who think they founded the state as they believe the people should appreciate them instead of questioning the founders' right to rule.
18.02.2008
In 1937 the six principles of the Republican People's Party (CHP) were imported into the constitution. The party principles of nationalism, republicanism, statism, secularism, populism and revolutionism became the state's principles. It was the final step for the marriage between the state and the party. By this constitutional change, a simple single-party rule had turned into a model very much reminiscent of European fascism of the time. Along with the integration of the party's principles into the constitutional order the secretary-general of the party was appointed the interior minister, the provincial party leaders became the governors.
The "consensus" in the parliamentary session on the amendment proposed by Prime Minister İsmet İnönü was 100 percent. Members of Parliament taking part in the vote in 1937 numbered 333 and those who endorsed the amendment totaled 333. This is I think what some people today call "consensus." What they do not know is that it was not "democratic consensus" but "consensus by force" under the authoritarian control of Parliament by the party. In any event, it was not a Parliament freely elected directly by the people but rather one appointed by the party. Many of those "parliamentarians" later said that they had in fact never been to cities that they were supposed to represent.
The proposal underlined that a constitution should define the features of the republic and suggested inserting the six arrows of the party into the constitution to define the state.
During the proceedings the first speech was delivered by Şükrü Kaya, interior minister, who argued that the "history of humanity started with the Turks, if there were no Turks there would be no history and no civilization" (to applauses and bravos from Parliament). Framed with such absurd arguments the party principles turned into state principles in February 1937.
Speaking during the "debate" in Parliament, Şemsettin Günaltay, the head of the Constitutional Committee and later prime minister, drew the limits of opposing views. In response to questions on whether opposing views to those principles could be expressed, Günaltay said: "Once these principles are enacted as the constitutional principles, it will be questioned whether counter-views could be expressed. For example, would a liberal defend the principles of liberalism or a communist advocate communism? No, they will and could not defend opposing views. As any act contrary to the constitution is a crime, opposition to these principles will also be considered a crime" (to applause and bravos).
Recep Peker, former secretary-general of the party and an architect of the state-party merger, stated that "all citizens shall believe in these principles, they shall all love and obey these principles, creating national harmony."
This example displays the mindset of Jacobin republicans in the 1930s. There was no room for different political views in their minds. The difficulty for Turkish democracy is this "founding Jacobin mindset" that did not allow democratic plurality. When the Democrat Party (DP) was formed in January 1946 under new circumstances following the end of World War II, it had to declare its loyalty to the constitution, including Article 2, which was, in fact, the principles of the opposing CHP. This was not only ironic but also reflective of mental and constitutional obstacles to developing a real democracy in the years ahead. Imagine a political party that formed the state and the nation according to its own principles from the top down then with a transition to multi-party politics after 1950 forced to seek the consent and approval of the people. It has always been difficult for those who think they founded the state as they believe the people should appreciate them instead of questioning the founders' right to rule.
18.02.2008
No comments:
Post a Comment