Posted on by Jenny White

Parliamentarians from various parties are beginning to hold talks about what should be in the new constitution that is now on the table. Few details are available as of yet, but lots of opinion. Here’s columnist Ihsan Dagi (click here for the full column), followed by a few of my own observations:

The new Turkey needs a post-Kemalist constitution. I understand the call for a liberal and democratic constitution as a demand for a non-ideological constitutional base of the state. This does not mean denouncing Kemalism as an “ideology,” but leave it to the people to choose among the set of ideologies available from the free market of ideas. Let the people follow ideologies if they chose, but keep the state neutral as the basis of a wider consensus on the mechanism of living together without threatening each other. Turkey is too developed and diversified to be ruled by any ideology upheld in the constitution. The age of ideological states has passed, passed with great pains, agonies and disappointments. What matters now is a state that provides people not with ideas, ideologies or lifestyles, but with services and protection… Ideological states, be they socialist, fascist or Kemalist, have failed to meet their promises. They have failed to produce freedom, welfare and security for their citizens. To build anew or maintain an ideological state is practically impossible in the contemporary complexities of the global economy, social networks and political interactions. It is a struggle against the current that risks confronting not only global trends but also the demands of the people at home. People want liberty, welfare and security, which cannot be provided by an ideological state, as proven by the political history of the 20th century. Any ideological state formations cannot survive in a flourishing open society, deepening market economy and penetrating globalization…

Ah, but here’s the crux of the matter:

…With its revolutionary ethos, Kemalism does not allow for the establishment of a full democracy since it does not trust the choice of people. It is not inclined to leave the people to choose their lifestyles, leaders and beliefs. People need to be guided, enlightened and ruled. This notion of tutelage that appoints vanguard institutions and actors over the people can no longer be sustained. People do not want tutelage from anyone, including the military and anything involving Kemalism. Thus, a new and post-Kemalist constitution is needed to form a polity that secures and enables the people to rule themselves through liberal democracy.

This seems to me to be a contradiction: You wish to have a political system that distances itself from ideologies and leave the choice of lifestyle, leader, and belief up to the people. Trust them, Dagi says. They will choose liberal democracy and will choose a state that is neutral with regard to “the mechanism of living together without threatening each other”.

But polls show that in Turkey and the region as a whole, people tend to understand voting and democracy as ‘the winner gets to determine the dominant values’. Yes, there are liberals in Turkey’s parliament and liberals in Tahrir Square, but there are many people, perhaps the majority, who have strong values that they would like to see protected — not out of a desire to oppress, but to protect. Many of the Turkish government’s press and internet censorship moves and restrictions on alcohol have been phrased in terms of protecting the public. Can one trust the public to wish to protect gays and atheists, and heathens with anything-goes values with much enthusiasm if they think these are a threat to their society, to the family, to children?

Ideologies like socialism and Kemalism were meant to guide the choices of people in a direction viewed as desirable and good for society. That they failed is a different story, perhaps one about weakness for power, greed, and as Dagi points out, class mistrust. The proposition Dagi puts on the table is to let people choose their everyday ideologies to live by, but to leave the state out of it. This assumes that no ideological view will be powerful enough to win a majority in parliament and then begin to impose it’s values — for the good of the country. It also assumes that even ideological people will desire and support a neutral state.

Ideology here nor there, what is needed is

1) a powerful constitution with teeth that will enforce state neutrality and the rights of each individual, regardless of their characteristics and beliefs, to be protected from the interference of the state AND their neighbors. That will keep an ideologically minded ruling party from being able to make laws according to their values.

2) An independent judiciary staffed by judges and prosecutors who believe in the constitution (and not, as a TESEV poll showed, in the primacy of the state) and are willing to actively protect the individual against the community AND the state. This will require a generation of police and lawyers who understand what individual rights mean — which Turkey doesn’t yet have, judging by how violence against women still is often treated by such officials as a family matter, not a crime against the individual that is to be taken as seriously as any other violent crime.

A liberal constitution is a first step, but it will be toothless without a robust, fair-minded and incorruptible police force and judiciary to enforce it. People want more than services and protection from the state; they also want to see an expression of their values and their identities reflected in those that rule them — and the laws they make. The role of the constitution and the judiciary are to manage those forces and demands, the ideologies and values competing to put their stamp on society, whether it’s AKP’s alcohol restrictions or The Kansas Board of Education trying to insert Intelligent Design into science textbooks.

People will never give up trying to impose their values on the wider society. A liberal constitution will blunt that impulse, and it means that a lot of people will be disappointed.

Tags: Politics, Rights, State of the Nation // 52 Comments »