Constitution exercises

First of all, let us say this: the Constitution package planned to be submitted to the Assembly today is of course not a perfect text. Indeed, no criticism that can be made of this package's inadequacy is, in theory, unjustified. There could have been many more things in this package. For example, it could have been arranged for the package's content to include some articles on the democratic opening, and for provisions on "mother-tongue education" and "compulsory religion classes" to be included. In fact, going further, a far more comprehensive constitutional amendment could have been pursued instead of a partial constitution.

Of course there is no reason to doubt that criticisms made from this starting point are made in good faith and in the name of a positive contribution to the present constitutional amendment. And besides, who will doubt on behalf of what, of whom, and by what right? We keep debating here to seek the most reasonable point possible within a democratic framework. Is that not what is desired?

However, precisely at the level of the healthiest debate, one must not refrain from voicing serious problems with such contributions as well. After all, even in its present form the constitutional amendment attempt faces radical opposition, opposition is hardly the word, a rigid front of rejection. In this state it does not seem all that easy for it to secure a minimum consensus in parliament. The minimum consensus is the number that can carry the present package to a referendum, and even the ruling party's seemingly "sufficient" number of seats can become unreliable depending on the content of the package. If an article on religion classes were added to the package's content, some numbers, and if articles on the democratic opening were added, other numbers, might drop, and this possibility does not seem a negligible one. After all, politics does not begin with preparing ideal constitutional texts and end there.

The concern about maintaining the same balance of numbers grows even larger when it goes beyond the assembly and comes before the people, that is, in the case of a referendum. Depending on the changing content of the package, the likelihood of its passing the referendum can drop considerably. Do you not see how the articles on the democratic opening can be instrumentalized by nationalist clamor?

Unfortunately our people, on seeing the perfect legal ideals formed in our intellectuals' minds, do not necessarily treat them at once with "I was looking in the sky and found it on the ground, thanks be to the One who granted it." Even if the AK Parti base would approve an arrangement that would remove religion classes from being compulsory, you can expect it to lead the CHP to cling, under the surface, to the propaganda that "these will make the youth irreligious." Do not suppose the CHP has not discovered that this instrument is far more functional against the AK Parti than secularism arguments. It means we are at precisely the moment when the exploitation of religion is needed for the survival of the regime.

In short, in his article yesterday Kürşat Bumin, referring to the fine articles of Ergun Özbudun, Serap Yazıcı and Mustafa Erdoğan, counted three styles of politics, but the thing missing in these exercises of enriching the content of the present constitution package is perhaps only politics. What makes it impossible to obtain the possible good result can often be the search for something better. Should we be thankful, or lament, that there is no possibility of having the perfect adopted, accompanied by an unquestionable authoritarianism, without presenting it to the people's approval? Of course let us be thankful for it. It is a good thing that we have no such possibility. Whatever is to be done will take place within the limits of politics and within democratic approval procedures.

At the same time, I too have a criticism: that during the preparation phase of the package, although no positive electricity was received from the opposition parties, their anticipated criticisms in the process were taken into account more than necessary. The criticisms voiced in the process about, for example, the parliament's electing members to the Constitutional Court or the HSYK were evidently taken into account too much in the name of the so-called "superstition of consensus," and this time one has fallen well behind the contemporary judicial horizon. This already constitutes an important part of the criticisms of both Bumin and the jurists he refers to.

Yet it is necessary to see the opposition's remaining outside the consensus equation, since it is clear that it will give no support anyway, as an occasion for turning back from this step backward, and to free the package that will be submitted to the assembly from the pressure of appearing agreeable to the opposition. This will bring the constitution, be assured, to a higher standard with which even the opposition will be content in the future, if not now.

I have no serious concern about the political price of a correction on this. In the referendum assessment, the gain from such an arrangement will be far greater than its loss.