Politics of elections, politics of change

When compared to the last general elections, which took place in 2007, the June elections appear calm and normal. There is no controversy surrounding the future of the regime, secularism and the secular lifestyle being threatened by the ruling party or over Turkey becoming Islamized. Now the debates evolve around personal matters and the promises of political parties.

If politics is persuading people on how to meet their needs and fulfill their demands, the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) has an advantage since it has been in power for the last nine years and has done a great deal with respect to this. Thus, in its election campaign, the AK Party underlines its “successes” the management of the economy and foreign policy. Under the AK Party government advancements have also taken place in the fields of health care, education, and transportation as well as social security and solidarity.

Moreover, Primer Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan appeals to the public and manages political debate through mega projects like the ones in İstanbul. He also refers to the new constitution as the “greatest project of the AK Party.” This, however, does not stop some criticism that the AK Party has abandoned its efforts to reform the political realm, concentrating only on self- developmental efforts. An understanding of politics without a democratic perspective has been the weakness of central-right politics since the 1950s. Whether or not the AK Party falls into this trap will be clear after the elections.

The novelty of this election is the position of the Republican People’s Party (CHP). It is good for the country that the CHP has stopped basing its politics against the ruling AK Party on the grounds of “regime security” and “secularism.” These themes have not only proved “ineffective” to stop the rise of the AK Party but also poisoned the will of people with different lifestyles to live together.

Now the new leadership of the CHP has devised a new language of opposition. It accuses the AK Party of being a pro-status quo party and presents itself as the party of change. It constantly tries to distance itself from the state and claims to represent “people power.” In its election manifesto, there is no reference to Kemalism and its six principles. Where it mentions the “six arrows” of the CHP it refers to secularism, republicanism and for a surprise, democracy. The party defines itself as advocates of freedoms, solidarity, equality, and pluralism.

All these indicate a change of mind, or at least strategy, on the party of the CHP. Whether this is sustainable or not depends, I think, on the election results. If the party manages to get a vote of around 30 percent, the new leadership may be able to hold on to its position and continue with its ideological transformation of the CHP, which is the sine qua non for the normalization of Turkish politics.

The way in which the AK Party responds to the “new CHP” shows that it is not really prepared to deal with such new political language. Thus, it resorts to highlight the policies of the old CHP, like the one that banned the publication of a Kurdish literary classic, “Men u Zin.” Erdoğan also rightly capitalizes on the exaggerated promises of CHP leader Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu, which damages the credibility of the latter.

The Peace and Democracy Party (BDP) is expected to increase its seats in Parliament. With “civil disobedience” in the region it is mobilizing Kurds to back the independent candidates it supports. The central strategy of the BDP is to stop, and if possible, rollback, the success of the AK Party in the Kurdish populated cities. This was done to some extent in the 2009 local elections. Now, by pushing the AK Party out of the region, the BDP tries to live up to its claim that it is the sole representative of the Kurdish people. Even if the AK Party continues to lose some votes in the region this does not mean that all Kurds will abandon the AK Party. I think Kurds will continue to be represented by both the AK Party and the BDP, which is, in fact, a good thing to address the Kurdish question.

And the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP)… I think the fate of the elections will be determined by this party. If it falls short of the national threshold of 10 percent the parliamentary composition will be advantageous for the AK Party. Yes, in such a case the representative character of Parliament will be questioned. But my main concern is that if the MHP is left in the street unable to be represented in Parliament we may not be able to address two fundamental questions that will come up after the elections: the new constitution and the Kurdish issue. Radical nationalism of the MHP under new leadership that is more inclined to put pressure through the streets may block “great solutions” and threaten the stability of Turkey.

A constitution without an official ideology

The June elections seem predictable. The ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party) is expected to win another term. What is not predictable is the process of drafting a new constitution or its contents.

In the aftermath of the elections, a new constitution will be high on the national agenda. Political parties, as well as the public, have already been mobilized on this. According to a survey conducted by MetroPOLL in April, 69 percent of people want a new constitution.

It is not only people at large but civil society that seems enthusiastic about a new constitution. Almost all civil society organizations have been engaged in background preparations to start the process after the elections. They have been organizing conferences and workshops, establishing principles and writing their own preliminary drafts.

All these activities indicate the presence of a high level of sensitivity among people who are unlikely to leave the making and content of the new constitution to the politicians. As political parties continue to talk of “participation” as being key to the drafting of the new constitution it seems that civil society is already gearing up to participate qualitatively in the process. All this is good news and it does not really leave any choice for political parties but to engage with civil society. This also means that the drafting of the new constitution is not solely dependent on the goodwill of the AK Party; there is a genuine popular demand and preparations by civil society. Certainly, it will not be easy, since a new constitution means a redistribution of all state power within the system. There may be resistance and unreasonable demands that cannot be met, but there is still a basic principle on which a consensus can easily be built. That is, in fact, the very logic of a constitution, which is to guarantee the rights and freedoms of citizens vis-à-vis the state authority.

I guess we may not be far off from agreeing on the principle that, irrespective of who is in government or who has the majority in Parliament, people should be safe from the assaults of state authorities. The citizens of Turkey should see that it is not “their” political parties but “their” constitution that guarantees their rights and freedoms.

I believe a set of principles outlined last week by the Turkish Economic and Social Studies Foundation (TESEV) is worth examining closely. Prepared by notable academics and opinion leaders and written by professors of constitutional law Mustafa Erdoğan and Serap Yazıcı, the TESEV report has created high expectations. Any step back would be regarded as a serious deviation from a democratic constitution. As stated in the TESEV report, we should first agree on a very fundamental principle that a democratic state does not own an “official ideology.” Because an ideologically neutral state will enable us to view the state and society in the right order; that is, it is a society that builds the state, not vice versa. Thus it will prevent us from constructing a system in which the state, its ideology, and its elite dominate society. If we mean to achieve an emancipated society, the first place to start is by getting rid of an ideology of state built into the constitution.

Who will oppose this and on what grounds? If an ideology is turned into a state ideology protected by the constitution then there could be no competition among various ideologies. It would mean that one is superior to the rest.

There can be no ideology of the state, and people may have more than one. There is more than one ideology competing in the free market of ideas. Therefore, a democratic constitution guarantees the free competition of ideas, ideologies, lifestyles and belief systems. There should be no single superior one that has privileges over the others.

On this and other issues, we do not really know much about what the political parties are thinking and planning. In their election manifestos, all are calling for a new constitution but without going into detail about the content and basic principles of their vision for this new constitution.

If the new Parliament is to draft a new constitution after the elections, political parties should be disclosing more of their opinions on this issue. Some time ago Ergun Özbudun, a professor of constitutional law, called on political parties to prepare and share their drafts for a constitution in advance of the elections, thus enabling people to cast their votes accordingly. But none have done so. It has turned out now that this is also the expectation of the people. MetroPOLL’s recent public opinion survey shows that 75 percent of people want to see drafts from political parties before the elections.

What this means is very simple: People want some sort of guarantee, not only for the drafting of a new constitution but also for the content. While the outcome of the upcoming elections seems pretty predictable, I guess debate about the new constitution after the elections will be more heated and unpredictable.