Farewell to the Generals' Constitution

A majority in Turkey has come out in favour of the constitutional reform initiated by the Justice and Development Party (AKP). Although heavily criticised, the changes brought by the reform are by all means an improvement over the old constitution, in the opinion of Dieter Sauter in Istanbul

An array of ballot papers during Turkey's referendum (photo: picture-alliance/dpa)
Final results show that 58% of Turks approved the government's proposed changes to the constitution that is poised to raise democratic standards and further erode the powers of the country's highly influential military

​​The good news for Tayyip Erdogan's AKP government is that 58% voted in favour of the constitutional amendments. There was great rejoicing outside the governing party's headquarters, because many had feared that the vote would end in a close call. US President Barack Obama congratulated the Turkish head of state in a personal phone call. The foreign ministers in the EU indicated that they were satisfied and relieved. Political instability on the Bosporus is the last thing anyone needs in the major crisis region of the Near and Middle East.

What the results of the referendum do not reveal at first glance, however, is that Turkey is deeply divided, into three camps. The cities in the West, on the Aegean and Mediterranean coasts (19 of 81 administrative districts) are the strongholds of the old government elite in the bureaucracy, judiciary and army. Most people here voted against reforms.

The majority in the nine districts in south-eastern Turkey, populated mainly by Kurds, boycotted the referendum. In the town of Hakkari, on the border with Iran and Iraq, just over 7% of voters showed up at the polls. The remaining 53 districts voted mostly in favour of the proposal.

Misuse of the constitution

The constitution, which, as a system of values, should be the element uniting any country, has been misused by all the parties here as a means to display political muscle. Each side has tried above all to demonstrate its influence, with the debate about the constitution often serving only as a pretence.

Turkey's prime minister Erdogan (photo: AP)
Already considering Plan B? In his nearly one-hour speech on the outcome of the referendum Turkey's prime minister Erdogan did not once mention the EU

​​Since 1982, the constitution has been amended 16 times. Almost half of the 177 articles have been reformulated over the course of the years. The latest reform is not even very far-reaching. Rights for Turkish citizens are indeed dispensed rather sparingly in the 26 amended articles: a bit of data protection, the introduction of collective wage agreements for public servants – but no right to strike; every citizen should be able to appeal to the Constitutional Court; an independent ombudsman will be set up to handle citizen complaints; and even high-ranking members of the military must from now on answer to civilian courts.

Nevertheless, every small step is better than abiding by a legal order worked out in Ankara in 1982 on behalf of the generals who perpetrated the coup. That the amendments could lead to the creeping Islamicisation of the country was a fear that even the most stubborn opponents of the reform hardly broached.

The referendum as "war of liberation" against the AKP

The naysayers made up a colourful coalition running the gamut from parties on the left-wing radical fringe to ultra right-wing groupings. Every group had its own motive. They were united not by their "no" to the constitutional reform, but rather by their rejection of the AKP. Few of them argued against the amendments themselves. Not a single alternative formulation for the proposed text of the constitution came from any of the opponents.

photo: Street fighting years in Turkey (photo: AP)
Military legacy: The current constitution was ratified by popular referendum during the military junta of 1980-1983. Since its ratification in 1982, the constitution has been amended 16 times

​​The head of the largest opposition party, Kemal Kilicdaroglu (Republican People's Party – CHP), went so far as to declare the referendum to be a "war of liberation" against the ruling AKP Party. Kilicdaroglu has only been opposition leader for four months, after his predecessor, Deniz Baykal, was toppled by a party intrigue. He now has to prove that his party can win elections better than with his forerunner.

With the results of the vote in his strongholds he would have gotten off lightly this time – were it not for an embarrassing mishap: he himself was not able to vote because he wasn't registered properly.

The pro-Kurdish Peace and Democracy Party (BDP) had called for a boycott of the referendum – as had the imprisoned leader of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), Abdullah Öcalan. The Kurdish politicians as well were concerned primarily with demonstrating one thing: that nothing can be pushed through in the mostly Kurd-populated Southeast without the help of the BDP. They succeeded at getting that point across.

Vote without debate

Tayyip Erdogan made it easy for his adversaries. He didn't bother to first create social consensus on his constitutional reform. He had the new articles set down – and then called on the country to agree with him. Even debates within his own party were squelched.

photo: dpa
Headscarfed woman at the polling station: That the amendments could lead to the creeping Islamicisation of the country was a fear that even the most stubborn opponents of the reform hardly broached, writes Dieter Sauter

​​When, a few months ago, 20 AKP MPs expressed criticism, the hot-headed Prime Minister reacted gruffly: If they were not in agreement, then they should leave the party. Thus, not even all the AKP representatives in parliament voted for Erdogan's constitutional reform. The article that was to change the rules for banning political parties therefore had to be removed from the reform package.

In his speech on the results of the referendum Erdogan then played the conciliatory statesman, maintaining that these constitutional amendments were not enough. His party wants to give the country a whole new constitution instead. This is one reason why the Prime Minister needed the controversial reform of the judiciary, which now, following the referendum, can go into effect.

Previously, the judiciary was controlled mainly by the old state elites, who were able to block any attempts at comprehensive constitutional reform. Now, however, the number of constitutional judges and members of the "Supreme Council of Judges and Prosecutors" has been raised and the appointment procedures slightly altered to give more power to parliament and the state president. This could shift political influence in favour of the AKP – even without the replacement of any judges or public prosecutors who are already in office.

Problems merely postponed

But things on the Bosporus are not going to change all that quickly. The next elections are in 2011 – and campaign periods are for making demands and promises, not a time for seeking solutions to difficult problems that are dividing the country. Reconciliation with Armenia or the resolution of the Kurdish question will hence be postponed for the time being. And, as the AKP will enter the elections with renewed strength, it can at least do without any populist disruptions to the peace talks in the Middle East.

Protesters in Turkey (photo: AP)
Not entirely convinced: The constitutional changes include measures to bar gender discrimination, bolster civil liberties and protect personal privacy. Protesters, however, remain sceptical

​​Whoever started the rumour in Europe that a vote in favour of this constitutional reform would be a boon to Turkey's efforts to join the EU must now admit that the topic of the EU has played practically no role at all on the Bosporus during the past weeks. Nor did Tayyip Erdogan mention the EU once in his nearly one-hour speech on the outcome of the referendum.

Even the conference held by the EU foreign ministers on relations with Turkey, which took place in Brussels only hours before the referendum, was hardly mentioned at all in the press.

The Turkish government's Plan B

Even though no one speaks openly about it, Ankara has been thinking for some time now about a Plan B – a future without membership in the EU. Tayyip Erdogan knows that the talks might even come to a standstill in the near future. The EU's High Representative for Foreign Affairs, Catherine Ashton, warned this weekend in Brussels that the negotiations with Ankara could break down if it is not possible to reach an agreement on reciprocal relations between Turkey and EU member Cyprus.

And in fact, the mediators will soon run out of topics. Of 35 chapters to be negotiated, only one has been concluded after five years. Around a dozen of the chapters are blocked, mainly due to Cyprus. The accession process has come to a dead end – or, as the former chief negotiator for Turkey, Ali Babacan, recently declared: despite the conflict with Cyprus, the goal of EU membership will not be relinquished – but Turkey will nonetheless not make any concessions to the EU in the Cyprus question. In other words: things are going nowhere.

Now even (former) advocates of Turkey's EU accession are searching for ways to recast relations with the country. German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle has called the debate on Turkey's candidacy "too short-sighted", which is why "no progress is being made at the moment". EU foreign affairs representative Catherine Ashton thinks "the strategic dialogue between Turkey and the EU must be conducted simultaneously with accession negotiations".

But what exactly is the difference between a "strategic dialogue" and accession talks? Catherine Ashton knows: the EU member states are not in agreement on how things should proceed with the accession candidate on the Bosporus, and it is unlikely that the 27 states will come to an understanding by year-end on what a Plan B with Turkey might look like.

Dieter Sauter

© Qantara.de 2010

Dieter Sauter has lived in Istanbul since 1991. From 1992 – 2005 he was studio chief at the ARD network in Istanbul, in charge of reporting on Turkey and Iran. Since 2005 he has worked as a freelance author, journalist and photographer as well as teaching in the television/film department at Istanbul's Bilgi University and publishing several books.

Translated from the German by Jennifer Taylor

Editor: Lewis Gropp/Qantara.de

Qantara.de

Interview with Erol Özkoray
"The Conflict between Civilians and the Military Is Rooted in the Constitution"
One of the greatest obstacles on the road to Turkish membership of the European Union is the influence of the Turkish armed forces on the politics of the country, says journalist Erol Özkoray in this interview with Attila Azrak

Interview with Gerhard Schweizer
"The AKP Has No Hidden Agenda"
Sabre-rattling in its foreign affairs and power struggles in its domestic politics are prompting many observers to wonder where exactly Turkey is heading. The cultural historian Gerhard Schweizer, an authority on Turkish society, rejects fears of Islamification in Turkish politics as "out of touch with reality". Christian Horbach spoke to him about how Turkey is developing

Turkey and the European Union
Turkey Will Not Be Lost to the West
The shift in Turkey's foreign policy orientation towards the Middle East has raised fears that the country could turn away from the West. In his essay, Hüseyin Bagci, professor of international politics at the Technical University of Ankara, explains that despite appearances, the USA and the EU remain Turkey's most important partners