That consensus is difficult does not necessarily mean that it is impossible. Now, the job is more troublesome since the divisions are more deeply rooted.

Today is the last day of 2011. In the previous commentary, I described the problems I expect for 2012. Today, referring to the present picture, let me take a look at the means we have at hand with which to deal with those problems. If you are interested, please read on.

This is what I think we have at hand: We have the new constitution making process. Circumstances with regard to this process are as follows: In 2011, the Turkish Grand National Assembly (TGNA) established a Conciliation Commission for the new constitution. The commission has a schedule and a modus operandi. Besides these, however, there is a general climate of despair about the new constitution throughout society. All of the experts on television stress why this goal cannot be accomplished. I frequently hear people saying, “Will the new constitution solve problems? It won’t.” But I do not think so.

Search for a consensus

I am aware that the new constitution-making process in Turkey does not resemble that in other countries. However, that the process is different does not necessarily mean it will fail. First things first, how is Turkey’s constitution-making process is different from that in other countries? This is what I see: Other countries write new constitutions after they solve the problem or problems that necessitated a new constitution in order to assure the solution constitutionally. Constitutions in a way are written in order to make the solution a norm. The South African constitution that was passed in an atmosphere of festivity must be read from this perspective. So must  the Icelandic constitution written in 2011 by the public.

In Turkey, on the other hand, no problems are solved. In this context, the new constitution is a part of the search of a consensus for solution. The design of the constitution-making process, from this perspective, is more important than the constitution itself. I think this is the first point to emphasize. The constitution-making process in Turkey has to be designed as a key part of the search for a solution, and more importantly of the search for a consensus for solution. Since political leaders do not lead us in solving the problems or unite us around a solution, the job has to be done by the people. We have to catch each other’s eye and debate our issues.

We cannot talk about an environment conducive to writing a new constitution if society is divided and problems remain intact. But I think this is what TGNA Speaker Cemil Çiçek meant when he said, in referring to the Conciliation Commission, “We want to make a constitution, not to write a constitution.” The new constitution process is one of the key tools to deal with the problems during 2012. At least that’s what I think.

And the second point: Concerning the constitution issue, the more problematic countries are, the longer the constitutional texts are. India, which has the most divided society of the world, also has the longest constitution. You need to write numerous long articles to convince groups that do not trust each other. The number of articles increases in parallel with division and insecurity. The Indian constitution has 450 articles; it takes forever to read it. From this angle, a short or framework constitution is a dream for Turkey.

The third point is related to the approach that says, “The Conciliation Commission cannot work upon full consensus or offer solutions.” I believe that this approach is completely wrong. That consensus is difficult does not necessarily mean that it is impossible. Now, the job is more troublesome since the divisions are deeply rooted. In the past, the main problem was the secularism vs. anti-secularism conflict. In this context, legitimacy could be secured only if the constitution was written upon the consensus between the AKP and the CHP. Today, the Turkish-Kurdish debate has been added to the picture. So let me note, a constitution written without a consensus between the AKP-CHP-MHP-BDP will start to be questioned the day after it is made.

This is the picture I see on the eve of 2012. Have fun.

This  commentary was published in Radikal daily on 30.12.2011