Government power grab or more democracy in Turkey?

10/09/2010

Bloggers question whether the upcoming referendum on constitutional amendments will bring more significant democratic reforms.

By Alexander Christie-Miller for Southeast European Times in Istanbul – 10/09/10

Two opposing referendum banners reading "yes" and "no" in Istanbul. [Getty Images]

After enduring weeks of bitter campaigning, Turks will vote on Sunday (September 12th) on a package of constitutional reforms that involve -- in large part -- the role of the military, expanding the constitutional court and the council that hires judges and prosecutors.

The dividing issue among bloggers hinges on whether reforms to the 1982 coup-era constitution are a government power grab or a historic step towards greater democracy.

Encapsulating the former position, Cuneyt Ulsever writes at the Hurriyet Daily News blog that reforms of the country's two top courts will erode the separation of powers that keeps the judiciary free from political control.

"To protect the rule of law against a government which naturally and systematically controls both execution and legislation, protection of the judiciary is required. At that point, we see the spirit of 'no'!"

He acknowledges the current situation gives the judiciary and the military too much power over the political process but argues the proposed reforms will "transform military tutelage into civilian tutelage".

Reform supporters are slightly more numerous, but are divided into two camps -- those who see it as a historic reckoning with the military establishment, and others for whom it is a welcome but insufficient prelude to a more comprehensive democratic reform.

Lale Kemal, writing on the website of the government-friendly Today's Zaman, describes the latter's fears as fallacious. Reforms are meant to "bring the highly polarised and politicised judiciary to more democratic standards", she said.

She speaks for many in arguing the Turkish judiciary is an extension of the military tutelage system that protects the state against the citizens. She concludes that "consciously or not, those who vote 'no' [to the amendments] ... will serve the coup mentality."

Many bloggers complain about the lack of discussion on specifics -- the details -- and the turning of the referendum into a vote of confidence on the Justice and Development Party (AKP) government.

Yigal Schleifer acknowledges Turkey's dire need for constitutional reform, but describes the current package as "a strange confection, layers of sweet-tasting and sensible-sounding enticements wrapped around a core of harder to swallow and clumsily disguised political self-interest".

Further reform are designed more to protect the state rather than citizens, he argues, "a mindset that still permeates much of Turkish law".

It is even questionable, he concludes, whether the reforms will materialise at all after the political tussle, "especially after all the effort that will be spent on passing (or killing) the current reform package".

Aengus Collins also bemoans the expended political energy and views the referendum as a stage-setter for next year's general elections.

"[Opposition CHP leader Kemal] Kilicdaroglu has more to gain from a victory and much more to lose from a defeat than [Prime Minister Recep Tayyip] Erdogan does."

In this context, he argues a "yes" vote would be damaging to the Turkish political scene because it will weaken the rejuvenated opposition -- led by Kilicdaroglu -- seeking the political middle ground.

"This country has been waiting many years for the resumption of vigorous cut and thrust between a stable government and a credible opposition that we have seen since Mr Kilicdaroglu took the helm in his party," he writes.