Reforming Turkey's democracy.

• Author: Ucum, Mehmet
• Position: COMMENTARY - Essay

ABSTRACT The constitutional amendments approved by the referendum of April 16, 2017 are not only a positive step toward renewal of Turkish law and the structure of its election system, but also a step that initiates reform in all dimensions of Turkey's political system. This commentary argues that Turkey's transition to a presidential system marks the beginning of a reform process that will strengthen the relationship between the public and the government and will result in the transition of Turkey towards a full democracy. Accordingly, it analyzes some of the main changes that can be expected in the post referendum period.

Introduction

The date April 16, 2017 points to a new phase in Turkey's battle to become a full democracy. This new period can be defined as the last phase in the complete dissolution of the fascistic-institutional dominance that had acted as a determinant at several levels of Turkish political life since the proclamation of the Republic. The constitutional amendments approved by the referendum of April 16, 2017 are not only a positive step toward renewal of Turkish law and the structure of its election system, but also a step that initiates reform in all dimensions of Turkey's political system.

The constitutional amendments approved on April 16, 2017 mark the nineteenth amendment to the 1982 Constitution. The previous eighteen amendments had consisted of intra-system revisions and, in a sense, they were amendments undertaken to modify and fix the apparatus built by the 1982 Constitution. In these revisions, regardless of their depth and scope, the basic foundation of the previous system was structurally preserved. The Constitutional amendments of April 16, however, enable system reform by restructuring the state apparatus into a Presidential system. In this sense, the constitutional amendments of April 16 can be regarded as the first reform step in transforming the political system built in the 1982 Constitution. It should be mentioned that the intra-system revisions executed up until April 16 paved the way for the system reform. Therefore, it would not be wise to trivialize or downplay the previous amendments to the system. With that said, it should be kept in mind that the constitutional amendments of April 16 are only the beginning of a series of reforms.

The basic reason why the constitutional amendments of April 16 are only the beginning of a series of reforms yet to come is simply the fact that this amendment doesn't yet fully meet Turkey's constitutional system needs. The first reform process that has started with the decision to change to a presidential system of government is a process that must be linked to new reforms phases coordinated with the other dimensions of the new constitutional system. It is necessary to first follow through on the legal arrangements stipulated in the constitutional amendments regarding the functions of principal governmental organs via the presidential system of government and to engage the system. In this context, political and technical regulations and executive decree regulations are of crucial importance. By all means, executive regulations that will be conducted via presidential decrees will only be possible when the new state model comes into play. Adjustment laws should be defined before the new government model is implemented. Moreover, adjustment laws will allow the steps to be taken that will embody and provide content for the first reform process in the eyes of the law. When the presidential government model comes into force with the first general election, and the regulations related to government are undertaken with the help of decrees, the other dimensions of the constitutional system will inevitably come to the fore. At this point, the system will be mature and functional enough to allow for discussion about issues such as how the second reform process will start and continue. The main issue to acknowledge in the interim is the fact that Turkey has been engaged in a reform process which has entered a new, intensive phase with the passing of the most recent constitutional amendments.

The constitutional amendments of April 2017, which have major significance, need to be analyzed from various dimensions. It is worth taking time to understand what these amendments mean, and what their repercussions entail. This compact study will address the amendments in terms of their timing, political law approach, democracy criteria, and content. The last section will briefly evaluate the issues of legitimacy, consensus, diversity and oneness.

The Timing of the Amendments: Turkey's Historical and Contemporary Needs

The objective conditions that bring the constitutional amendments of April 16 to light have determined the timing for the amendment as well. These conditions consist of four main factors: (1) The need to dissolve the anti-democratic governmental structure formed particularly after the 1961 Constitution, and (re)produced by internal powers that are closed, bureaucratic, detached from the public and vulnerable to being occupied by movements via filling state cadres, (2) The new phase in Turkey's struggle for democracy between bureaucratic institutional dominance and national sovereignty after the National Revolution of July 15-16, 2016 and the ensuing task of restructuring the government in a democratic manner, (3) The initiation of the constitutional amendment process by the actors that take responsibility for executing the process of political amendments that matured after the National Revolution of July 15-16, (4) Finally, the possibilities of change for Turkey in terms of meeting the new democracy and political system needs of the 21st century.

The Political Law Approach of the Constitutional Amendments

On April 16, 2017, for the first time in Turkish history, steps have been taken with the constitutional amendments for the transition from a designative and oppressive law approach to a facilitative and conducive approach in terms of the law of the political system. In this sense, implementing a completion election, a relative concurrent election and a renewal election introduce systemic features that strengthen the public's options to directly elect the parliament and the government. In jurisdiction, the link between the will of the nation, by way of the representatives elected by the public, will strengthen democratic politics and improve accountability mechanisms. The fact that the government will be elected with a minimum fifty percent plus one vote and via indirect election is a systemic assurance that empowers the public and safeguards pluralism. Moreover, since this opportunity ensures that the public will not solely depend on political party candidates, it has the power to unearth options outside of political parties in terms of claims to governmental roles.

Clearly, what is being discussed here is a systemic change that has been developed with a political law approach that empowers the public and facilitates democratic politics. A significant outcome of this amendment involves juridical legitimacy. Now, the production of law will not be based on the will of the elite but instead it will be based on the demands and needs of the public.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

April 2017 Constitutional Amendments and the Criteria of Democracy

For a state to be regarded as democratic there should be congruity with four principles involving the establishment, renewal, and functional principles of democracy. Namely, these principles are: the principle of legitimacy, the principle of solution, the principle of change, and the principle of separation of powers.

Principle of Legitimacy: With the constitutional amendments of April 16, a major step has been taken to be a democratic state by fully solving the problem of democratic legitimacy in the establishment, renewal, and functions of governmental organs. That sovereignty now belongs to the public, and the republic is defined as a democratic state, mark the last stages of the establishment process for Turkey. The constitutional amendments of April 16 facilitate the transition to these reformist phases and initiate the process of reforms that fully establish the legitimacy of Turkish democracy.

Principle of Solution: This principle defines how problems are solved and how blockages are surpassed in political systems. With respect to the principle of solution in democracies, problems are solved through democratic processes through the legitimate organs of the state. The solution to objective or subjective problems in Turkish political history between 1946 (the date of transition to a multi-party system) and July 15, 2016 were provided not by legitimate will and governmental organs but by illegitimate interventions. The constitutional amendments of April 16 provide a political transformation that will remove this problem in Turkey. When the presidential system comes into effect, any problems that may occur in the political arena, or any inconsistencies between the parliament and the government, will be primarily solved with the help of democratic politics. At times when Turkey's elected officials, working through the legitimate channels of the government organs, are incapable of solving problems, the choice of the public will be sought through referenda. As it can be seen, the fundamental will of the Turkish public, and their representatives as the democratically elected, are brought to positions as the legitimate actors in determining solutions for Turkey's political problems.

Principle of Change: The constitutional amendments of April 16 signify democratic gains for the Turkish public. Indeed, the presidential system of government is not a model that is preferred by political actors, but a model that reflects democratic gains for the people; it is a model chosen by the public. The presidential model of government was brought to Turkey's agenda via constitutional amendments prepared in line...