It is of significance that the constitution-making process started with the Constitution Platform Citizens’ Assemblies, the biggest event for deliberative democracy in Turkey.

If hundreds of people who do not know or resemble each other spend ten hours in a meeting hall, don’t you wonder what they are doing in there? I think you should. I am talking about the Constitution Platform Citizens’ Assembly series, the last one of which was held in Istanbul. During the Istanbul Assembly, there were almost a thousand citizens in the hall. They discussed constitutional issues all day long. I believe that the new constitution-making process started in an unaccustomed manner in Turkey. In this country, there are some things to which we are accustomed and some others we are not. The former is what we watch on the news every evening. So, today let me talk about the different, which I think is the sign of a new era. Let me tell you why.

Let’s start with the first difference: the new constitution-making process started with the Constitution Committee of the Turkish National Assembly. The modus operandi and the composition of this Committee reflected a major change in the mentality and a significant declaration of will. I considered the Committee as a major mental revolution. An equal number of representatives from each political party in the parliament convened to draft the new constitution. Those who are accustomed to and grew up in the conflict-generating political culture of the country that has remained intact since the pre-1980 period scowled at the Committee. “This process cannot bring a new constitution,” they claimed. No one appreciated the fact that this new approach based on equal representation was the core of deliberation. Those who write on deliberative democracy talk about the equal participation of all parties in the process, don’t they? Here was equal representation and participation throughout the process. The Committee had to run the discussion together and meet on common ground. This was the definition of its job. I think the Committee has made a good start. So far so good.

The second innovation was made by the Constitution Platform, with the Citizens’ Assembly series. The twenty-one civil society organizations that came together under the leadership of the Union of Chambers and Commodity Exchanges of Turkey formed the Constitution Platform. The Platform held 13 Citizens’ Assembly meetings in 12 cities. Invitations were sent to randomly selected citizens. Two-thirds of the participants were randomly invited citizens that accepted the invitation and one-third were representatives from local civil society organizations of all sorts. All were volunteers. They had the capability to represent the society in which they live. The deepest sufferers were also there. They discussed each and every issue at length. They shared how comfortable or uncomfortable they were when they said yes or no. They stated the yes’s along with the no’s in their minds. In other words, they participated in a comprehensive process of negotiation. They contributed to the creation of a unique dataset.

The third innovation was the heterogeneity of the participants. What we used to think a constitution meeting was one where everyone sat in school order and listened to the teachers. What we used to see was people coming together with other people on the same page. This was not the case with the Citizens’ Assembly meetings. During these meetings, people who were different from each other discussed constitutional matters. Those who had never heard about the problems of the Kurdish people learned about the issue from the eyes of the ordinary man on the street. They had the chance to discuss the headscarf issue looking women wearing headscarves in the eye. I personally think that it is of key importance that citizens looking each other in the eye and peacefully discuss the issues of the country. This was achieved during the Citizens’ Assembly meetings.

The Constitution Committee led by the Parliament Speaker Cemil Çiçek attended all of the meetings of the series.  I think it is very important for the future of Turkey that the constitution debate was designed in line with the principles of deliberative democracy. Turkey is progressing from a destructive to a constructive era. Methods convenient for destruction exclude the parameters of a healthy process of construction. The new constitution, however, is the starting point of construction.

With this perspective and conscience, it is of significance that the constitution-making process started with the Constitution Platform Citizens’ Assemblies, the biggest event for deliberative democracy in Turkey. Yet, I was not able to understand why anyone was not curious about the events or why no one asked, “What do hundreds of people do in that meeting hall for ten hours?” And I am even more surprised that no journalists asked this to participants at the end of the meetings. I just don’t understand.

This commentary was published in Radikal daily on 01.05.2012