logo tobb logo tobbetu

Commentaries

Güven Sak, PhD - [Archive]

Let 2013 be the year of a new constitution 01/01/2013 - Viewed 1914 times

 

I am of the view that we should count on the judgment of the people. 2013 must be the year of a new constitution. The politicians must keep their promise.

Having entered the new year, it is a tradition to make a wish. It is the time to decide what aspects of our lives we want to change. I wish that 2013 will be the year of a new constitution for Turkey. I wish that Turkey proves to the world that it can resolve all of its issues via parliamentary negotiations. The achievements of 2012 imply that the new constitution is doable. Politics is the art of finding a middle way, of whining. The purpose of negotiating is to find the middle way. The year 2013 should be the year of a new constitution for Turkey.

For the first time since the War of Independence, the Grant National Assembly of Turkey (TBMM) has been carrying out a genuine negotiation. The Conciliation Commission of the TBMM for the new constitution has been fulfilling a key function, if you ask me. Each and every issue has been discussed frankly under the roof of the TBMM. Isn’t that usually the case, you might ask. No, it isn’t. Given the system in which the prime minister is also the parliamentary group chair, the TBMM neither has the ability nor the culture of negotiation. This is why there has been a constant conflict in the parliament. This is the first point.

I believe that the Conciliation Commission for the new constitution made a significant contribution to the mentioned working culture. The commission was formed by an equal number of representatives from each party in the parliament and agreed to take its decisions unanimously. Both were important path-breaking decisions. I know some think that this is unreasonable, but I don’t think so. The modus operandi of the Commission is to introduce a negotiation tradition in a country that does not have one. I read the most successful synthesis of the negotiation tradition in Turkey years ago in Birikim magazine. It was a poem by Tarık Günersel on the so-called dialogue meetings groups on the left carried out just for the sake of formality. The groups A, B, C, D, E, and F expressed their positions. “It is A here/we came to establish dialogue/we are sure we are right/but we came here for dialogue.” After all the groups had expressed their positions, the poem ended, “we hereby resolve/what a nice thing dialogue is/and adjourn this meeting.” If the Conciliation Commission had a similar fate, it is the leader hegemony that is responsible. Let me note this here. Negotiation refers to the context in which parties with their particular and different perspectives convene to listen to and understand each other and reach the middle way. The modus operandi of the Commission is to enable negotiation, in essence. Commission members are the ones to make politics work and come up with solutions. Within this framework, I think the members were selected with the correct method. This is the second point.

Then, why has the Commission not been able to bear fruit yet? I think that the Commission has opened to discussion the points of difference, but that the modus operandi of the negotiation mechanism was not designed well. The parties that bring their texts to the table as they are automatically leads to the mood depicted in the above poem: “it is A here/we came to establish dialogue/we are sure we are right/but we came here for dialogue.” Naturally, each party thinks that it is the best one available, which decreases the room for the exchange of views. The task ahead is to strengthen moderation in the process. This is the third point.

What should we expect from the Commission in 2013? Members should prepare a text of texts to guide the discussion. I for one believe that it would be a useful practice to juxtapose a parliamentary constitution and a presidential system constitution, both based on the same democratic principles. During the citizens’ assembly meetings, the participants voted for a system with a publicly elected president accompanied by a prime minister. Asked why, the vast majority said, “a one-man system should be avoided.” I am of the view that we should count on the judgment of the people. 2013 must be the year of a new constitution. The politicians must keep their promise.

This commentary was published in Radikal daily on 01.01.2013

Share Bookmark and Share

« Other Commentaries