Beyond optimism and pessimism on the new constitution

A new constitution for the new period is a candidate to be the most important item on politicians' agenda as we head toward the 12 June elections. I say "a candidate," because as constitutional debates heat up, what the subject corresponds to in society, and what proportion of society's expectations regarding a new constitution concern it in the first degree, remains a serious question. At least for civil society organizations and the social segments that have made democratization their first priority, a new constitution is the most important agenda item for the new period and the only test point concerning the parties that will enter the election.

That is why civil society organizations are, one after another, taking part in the constitution-making process in the healthiest way possible. The new constitution will of course ultimately be made by the new Assembly to be elected. But this does not mean that all segments of society will not take part in this process. On the contrary, the new constitution must be realized by ensuring the widest possible participation and, again, the widest possible consensus. The soundest way of this is for everyone in society who says "I exist" to be included in the process within a framework of responsibility.

In this respect, draft constitutional proposals prepared by TÜSİAD and TESEV were each presented to the public in the past month. We know that a number of institutions, organizations or communities are currently preparing their own proposals. During this week the Institute for Strategic Thinking is also preparing to present to the public a draft it has been working on for a long time, in which the results of a series of workshops, one after another, have been evaluated.

Last weekend, the Abant Platform's two-day meeting titled "New Period, New Constitution" was held. The final declaration of the meeting stressed that "it is imperative that Turkey be rescued as soon as possible from the 1982 Constitution and the stifling climate this constitution created." It also stated that "the three most important constitutional problems now before Turkey are: identities; fundamental rights and freedoms; and the restructuring of the relations between elected authorities and the military and of the other tutelary institutions in accordance with the basic principles of democracy."

One article of the declaration was again about the manner in which the new constitution is made, and it was noted that "the new constitution must be made through a process of deliberation that starts from the people and includes the widest segments of society."

Although this too is a very good wish, we must nonetheless not forget that our social reality does not present too optimistic a picture of how this social participation will be carried beyond the efforts of the NGOs in question. This reality, which Orhan Miroğlu pointed out in passing at Abant, carried the warning that the idea that society is inclined to negotiate and agree with one another is too optimistic.

Indeed, when you ask which party is sufficiently prepared and willing for a new constitution cleansed of every kind of military and bureaucratic tutelage, no one other than the AK Parti seems willing, though it has some problems with its current positions. And it seems certain that unless it captures a parliamentary majority that can change the constitution alone, no step will be made to be taken by it, especially on these issues.

Truly, consensus and agreement are not always on articles pleasing to everyone. But I wish that the things to be demanded for agreement were at least matters aimed at realizing non-tutelary rule, the ideal of equality and full democratization. As can be understood from their so recklessly filling their lists with the Silivri prisoners, the conditions of consensus they will put forward for a new constitution will be demands aimed not at democratizing the country further but only at restoring the tutelary positions they have lost

It is an important matter that the demand for a new constitution be made felt to the political parties by all segments of society, but what if in the bases of the parties in question there is either no such demand at all, or the constitution longed for will be a constitution that makes people long for the old one...

In the coming days the CHP is expected to present to the public its own constitution draft, which we know has been under way for quite some time. In spite of everything, I hope this draft will give hope for the post-election climate of agreement for the new constitution efforts. The constitutional amendment that the AK Parti made alone with its own votes and which was put to a vote in the referendum on 12 September was not bad at all. It relieved society. We do not think the CHP members, looking away from ideological bluster, would think the opposite. Because the amendment made was much more in harmony with the world's developing democratic level.

In a situation in which the AK Parti cannot make the constitution alone, should we postpone our expectations of a new constitution, or should we find ways of including the CHP and the other parties in the process?

This question alone may suffice to be pessimistic about the new constitution, but we must think of the new constitution debates beyond optimism and pessimism. For the new constitution debates at least ensure that citizenship consciousness develops further. They increase the awareness that the state is not a ruler or owner over citizens but a partnership realized with the participation of citizens. This is no small gain. Just as it was said in the final declaration of the Abant Platform regarding the new constitution: "The deliberation process is a process of democratic awareness-raising, education and maturation; it is not a bargaining process."