A New Constitution Is the Least But Not the Last

The quest for a new constitution gained a new civilian impetus at the recent meeting of the Abant Platform, where Turkish intellectuals observed that the 1982 Constitution, prepared under military tutelage, is the main stumbling block preventing the further democratization of Turkey.

The observation is nothing new. The impetus, on the other hand, is revived at a time when the politicians have lost their eagerness for a landslide constitutional reform.

The Justice and Development Party (AK Party) has championed a full-fledged or a partial change of the Constitution in the past. But every time it faced the resistance of interest groups ― including the deep state ― which benefit from the current Constitution, it stepped back. The AK Party is currently working on a limited amendment that would solidify party closure criteria. This is better than nothing. But if this amendment is going to extinguish the public will for a complete constitutional change, it may create more problems than it solves.

The AK Party is quite reasonably focusing its efforts on an amendment that will secure its survival. Party closure cases harm not only the parties subjected to those cases; they also decelerate the growth of the economy and damage Turkey's bid for EU membership. It is a responsibility of the government to guarantee that no further derailment occurs. Under these circumstances, the duty to keep the impetus for a new constitution falls on civil society. The Abant Platform has done its duty. Now the general society must embrace, or rather initiate, a new movement for a new constitution.

But that is not enough.

The advocates of the current establishment have shown clearly in the recent past that even a constitutional change does not translate into further democratization if it is not accompanied with the creation of a culture of democratization. The 367 quorum that blocked the election of the president in 2007 was an unconstitutional "thing." But the parliamentary and extra-parliamentary opposition, materialized in the personality of Sabih Kanadoğlu, taught the nation a lesson: As long as the anti-democratic, elitist, authoritarian secularist mentality is alive, the Constitution means very little.

A constitution is simply a text, in the end. And every text is indefinitely re-interpretable. It is not the text that sets up the criteria for democracy and human rights; it is the culture of good sense and good faith that breathes life into the text. That culture can only be created through education, civilian action, civilian reaction and the public endorsement of universal values of democracy and human rights.

The prosecutors are doing their best to clear Turkey of constantly conspiring deep state structures, but as long as the nation is receptive to social engineering projects, as long as people are ready to be deceived by power-seeking groups, as long as parents teach their children blind obedience to the state and the army, as long as the relationship between the state and the citizen is perceived as one between the feudal lord and his subjects, there will always be ill-intentioned people who will usurp the nation.

The flock always finds a shepherd, and a shepherd will always find a mastiff.

Turkey needs a new constitution, but it also needs a new civilian initiative to turn that constitution into a social contract.