Türkiye patches up its Constitution whenever it needs to, but drafting a brand-new constitution to replace the old one is a tricky business. The governing Justice and Development Party (AK Party) led by President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan spearheads the efforts to eliminate the 1982 Constitution created by the military junta, which seized power in 1980. However, the opposition drags its feet on the matter.
Erdoğan’s speech on Sunday at the inauguration of the new parliamentary session once again concentrated on the issue. “This revered nation, which challenged the weapons of putschists on July 15, deserves crowning its fight for democracy with a civil constitution,” Erdoğan said, referring to the 2016 coup attempt by the Gülenist Terror Group (FETÖ). The first mass civilian resistance to putschists in a country accustomed to such attempts is an example of support for democracy. As Türkiye gears up to mark the centenary of the republic, Erdoğan wants the country to welcome it with a new constitution.
The debate over the constitution has been lengthy and for more than a decade, Erdoğan and the AK Party championed the struggle to gain the support of other political parties to draft a new constitution. The opposition has been reluctant and, at times, outright hostile to the attempts to create a new constitution. Their reasons are mostly political and they oppose a constitution to be “imposed” upon them by the government, despite Erdoğan’s repeated remarks that they want to consult with other parties before starting the work.
For a new constitution draft to pass in Parliament, it needs at least 400 lawmakers to ratify it. Anything over 360 votes would pave the way for a referendum, allowing the people to decide. The AK Party retained 268 seats in the May 14 parliamentary polls, far higher than its closest rival, the Republican People’s Party (CHP), which won 169 seats. The AK Party, however, is part of the People’s Alliance, which also includes its closest ally, the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), and together, the alliance has 323 seats.
Erdoğan told Parliament that the People’s Alliance made preparations back in 2021 for drafting the new constitution, but their “sincere” invitation to the opposition to join the efforts went unanswered. “They always complain about the coup-era Constitution, but unfortunately, they did not want to leave their comfort zone when we offered to take concrete steps,” he lamented.
“Maturity of Turkish democracy is sufficient to end this bad tradition (of a military junta drafting a constitution) that began back in the 1960 coup,” Erdoğan said on Sunday.
“The success of a new constitution is related to having a comprehensive text which every individual, every party, every community may agree upon. A constitution that does not cover the common part of the state and nation and common future will be useless,” Erdoğan said as he invited everyone to heed the call for a new constitution “in a constructive manner.”
Former Parliament Speaker Ismail Kahraman, a jurist who is currently a member of a presidential council composed of veteran politicians, said “repairing” the current Constitution is unnecessary and what Türkiye needed was a new constitution. “You should not base it on the old Constitution; you should rewrite it,” Kahraman told Anadolu Agency (AA) on Monday.
“We need a concise constitution. Constitutions should not be long,” Kahraman stated. He recalled his tenure as parliament speaker as a “stillborn work.” “They asked representatives from four parties, but they had different opinions. It was impossible to reach a consensus. In the end, it took 25 months of work, but nothing came to fruition,” he said.
One suggestion for the constitution by Kahraman is the definition of laicite (secularism). “We don’t have a final definition of laicite. It should be either classified as a freedom or should be removed,” he said. He noted that constitutions are classified as “religious” or “irreligious,” and Turkish constitutions have been in the first category. “But there is a wrong notion here that laicite is viewed as irreligious. This is because laicite is not properly defined in the Constitution.”
