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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment