7/29/2019 ergun zbudun

1/6

Ergun zbudun, a prominent professor of constitutional law and political science who headed a groupof academics that prepared a draft constitution in September 2007 at the request of the Justice andDevelopment Party (AK Party), is not optimistic about the completion of a new constitution given theunanimity requirement within the commission tasked with drafting it and the need for cooperationwithin Parliament.

As far as the presidential system debates are concerned, zbudun opposes it on the technical

grounds that in Turkish political culture it might lead to further deadlocks.

According to him, in practice Turkey has already switched to a semi-presidential system. Because he

considers the Kurdish problem the countrys biggest challenge, zbudun does no t perceive any threat

of authoritarianism, civilian or military, in Turkey.

Drafting a new constitution is one of the most compelling debates of Turkish politics. Since the

Constitutional Reconciliation Commission, which was established in October 2011, has so far failed to

agree on a new constitution except for a few articles, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoan

announced that the AK Party would proceed with its own proposal unless the commission can

complete its work by the end of March. When a closure case against the AK Party was opened in

March 2008, the constitution debate was shelved. Sundays Zaman talked to zbudun not only about

the latest developments in the new constitution, but also the state of Turkish democracy.

As one of the most prominent political scientists in Turkey, what is your evaluation of the

current status of Turkish democracy?

Turkey is still not a consolidated democracy by Western liberal standards. Turkey has not been able to

consolidate its democracy despite almost 60 years of multiparty democracy. That presents a contrastto the eastern and southeastern European countries. Many of them were successful in establishing

consolidated democracies such as the Czech Republic, Poland and the Baltic countries.

This requires an explanation. To some extent Turkeys problem is its tutelary heritage. Its roots can be

found in the single party period. Starting from the 1960 coup, the military has played a fundamental

role in Turkish politics over elected bodies. Turkey has had reasonably free elections, but until recently

the elected bodies were under the control of non-elected bodies, the military and civilian bureaucracy.

To a large extent this problem is behind us, but there are other problems. Turkey is in a great sense a

divided society. It is divided ethnically and also split between ultra-secularists and religious

conservatives. Both are deep divisions within the society. Such societies often present more difficulty

for the consolidation of a democracy and creating a constitution based on consensus.

What about the EU reforms? Did they not ease the tensions?

We had a quite an impressive reform period between 1999 and 2006. Im not denying the importance

of such reforms, but still the illiberal mentality of the 1982 Constitution has not yet been eliminated.

Were in search of a new constitution, but its not an easy job because the deep divisions make it

almost impossible to reach an overwhelming consensus. These are some of the points of divergence:

the Kurdish question, the relations between the state and religion, the status of the Directorate ofReligious Affairs, the opposition parties being unhappy with the composition of the present judiciary.

7/29/2019 ergun zbudun

2/6

It seems impossible to reach a consensus if we mean unanimity by consensus. The establishment of a

commission [for drafting a new constitution] is a good sign, but the unanimity rule makes it very difficult

to achieve concrete results. So far, the commission has been working for almost one-and-a-half years,

but they have mostly agreed on technical matters. On all more divisive issues such as education in

ones mothers tongue, decisions have been postponed.

The prime minister recently proposed a deadline for the commissions work

The commissions work cannot continue indefinitely, so I can understand the prime ministers position.

Certain problems cannot be solved unanimously no matter how long one debates them.

The AK Party does not have enough votes to even force a referendum. Only in collaboration with

another party can they have their proposal adopted by the assembly in the 330 and 367 range, but

with which party can they form an alliance? The Peace and Democracy Party (BDP) seems to be the

only candidate. They dont have a basic objection to the presidential system, but that requires give andtake. To support the AK Party they have to obtain very important concessions: education in ones

mother tongue, the definition of citizenship, an administrative reform to substantially increase the local

governments, general amnesty, etc. Whether the AK Party is ready to make these concessions, Im

not certain.

We are in a wait and see situation, and I wish I could say I am optimistic. At the moment Im not. An

easier collaboration would be with the Republican Peoples Party (CHP), but it is confused about t he

Kurdish problem. The CHPs position is not clear. The AK Partys insistence on a presidential system

also makes it difficult to reach consensus. Both the CHP and Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) are

against it.

The presidential system would lead to serious problems in Turkey

What do you think of the AK Partys presidential system proposal? Would it be beneficial for

Turkey?

I dont think it will be beneficial, which is the opinion I expressed 20 years ago. I am against the

presidential system on technical grounds, not on ideological grounds. In the US it has been in practice

for more than two centuries. In a presidential system, if the presidency and the congress are controlled

by opposing parties, the system leads to deadlock. Even in the US, where the political culture is very

moderate and pragmatic, we have examples of conflicts. In Turkey, this would be a much more

serious problem. Our political culture is not amenable to compromise and dialogue. The presidential

system has no mechanism to resolve such conflict. My objection is based on this technical ground. I

am not saying the presidential system would lead to a dictatorship, a one-person rule. These are

much-exaggerated criticisms. I see no pressing reason to change our system.

Why does the prime minister insist on the presidential system, then? Does he think the

division of powers blocks him?

7/29/2019 ergun zbudun

3/6

I dont understand this argument because the presidential system is based on the strict separation of

powers between the legislature and the executive. While in the parliamentary system the government

has a majority in parliament, there is collaboration between the two bodies. A parliamentary system

produces more a harmonious relationship between the two groups.

Does the PM not know these differences?

That I dont know, but most political scientists agree that a prime minister who has the support of the

parliamentary majority is much stronger. For example, the British prime minister is stronger than the

US president. During the rule of the AK Party government we havent had any problems regarding the

consistency of policies -- the government was able to pass legislation. Why the insistence, I dont

know.

After the 2007 referendum we had a hybrid system. Its a parliamentary system, but the

president will be elected by popular vote.

That created a problem. With the change in 2007, we approached a semi-presidential system anyway

because we define it as a system by which the president is elected by popular vote. The 1980

constitution in Turkey already gave the president substantial powers. In 2007 we made a change to

elect the president by the people. In practice the system is already a semi-presidential system. We

dont have a fixed blueprint of this system. Maybe the prime minister is influenced by previous

negative experiences with coalition governments. Turkey had very ineffective coalition governments in

the past, but they are not necessarily inevitable in a parliamentary system.

Whats the best way to avoid problems in the current mixed system?

A president elected by the people will have more authority in the system; therefore, from now on the

president will play a more important role. France has an elected president, and the government and

the prime minister are responsible to parliament. My argument is that, in practical terms, we already

have a semi-presidential system which gives the president an important role in the political system. To

go one step further and transform the system into a presidential one -- I fail to see the logic behind it.

What about the argument that the PM wants to concentrate the power in his hands?

I cannot comment on his motives. As long as there is a strong parliamentary majority, he will have

enough power. The presidency will not add anything to such powers. The presidential system is a real

separation of powers with all the benefits and the drawbacks.

Will the election of the president by popular vote create a problem for the functioning of

Turkish democracy?

As long as the AK Partys majority is stable, it wont be a problem -- but if it changes, it will be a

different story. There will be conflicts between the powerful, elected president and the opposing

parliamentary majority. In France, there is a similar problem they call cohabitation: the president

7/29/2019 ergun zbudun

4/6

coming from one party, the parliamentary majority from another, but Frances manages the problem in

a de facto way.

What do you recommend?

I recommend a classic parliamentary system, but I am also realistic in that the present majority will not

go back to a symbolic presidency.

Making reforms in other areas of the constitution will also make it easier to obtain the support of a

stronger majority.

Freedom of religious symbols should be guaranteed

What should the definition of secularism be in the constitution given the fact that the headscarf

issue has not been solved?

It has not been solved legally. To a large extent it has been solved on a de facto basis, but of course,

using religious symbols should not be a cause for discrimination. Ive always been against the

prohibition of the headscarf at universities from the very beginning and strongly criticized the decision

of the Constitutional Court. However, the present situation is a de facto situation. It should also be

guaranteed by laws and the constitution. There would be no discrimination on the basis of religious

beliefs or symbols. We also need some more solid guarantees.

There are so many different definitions of secularism. The constitution is not a textbook. It does not

have to define secularism. Its a matter of mentality. I am in favor of an American style of secularismand a state without an established religion, which is equidistant to different beliefs and non-beliefs.

Could Turkey succeed in it?

Turkey must succeed in it. At the moment we speak of a secular system, but it is not very secular in

the generally agreed sense because all religious services are performed by a state institution, the

Directorate of Religious Affairs. The present Turkish system does not conform to secularism. All these

things should be considered in the new constitution. For example, the current status of the Directorate

of Religious Affairs is problematic for the Alevi community and even part of the Sunni community

because you impose one understanding of religion, whereas in the past, there were different

approaches to religion. The state should relax its control over this area and leave it to the people, to

civil society.

There is no danger of authoritarianism in Turkey

What is the status of military tutelage in Turkey? Would you agree that the militarys power has

been curbed?

It has been curbed on a de facto basis. Certainly it is an important, positive step, but institutional

arrangements are still in place. The National Security Council (MGK) does not have to be a

7/29/2019 ergun zbudun

5/6

constitutionally established body. Within the judiciary, we have two military high courts. In a

democratic system there are military courts for disciplinary affairs, but their decisions are subject to the

control of the higher civilian supreme court. We have a military court of cassations and the high

military administrative court. Thats an anomaly. Of course some reforms were made. The structure of

the MGK has been changed to some extent and the law on the MGK has been liberalized, but moremust be done to put civil-military relations on a more democratic level.

Do you think the AK Party will attempt to change it given the closure case in 2008?

The closure case was a tragic event. The AK Party was saved by the skin of its teeth with six votes to

seven. It was really a turning point in Turkish history. If the party had been closed, it would have been

a great step backward. Matters have changed since then because of Ergenekon and other trials. The

military does not have the same authority and prestige in the system. To abolish the military high court

would not create a problem. The AK Party can act comfortably on this, but the commission has not yet

started discussing the judiciary. However, I read that the AK Party would propose the abolition of thetwo military high courts. Thats a positive step. I am in favor of it.

As someone who has witnessed the journey of Turkish democracy, what is your projection for

the next decade?

I dont see a serious threat to Turkish democracy. I dont think there is a danger of sliding into an

authoritarian system, either civilian or military. Prospects for democratic reform are rather strong.

Whether that would mean a perfectly democratic constitution, at this point I am not so sure. Certain

reforms have been made on the Kurdish issue. At the same time this is a major opportunity. If Turkey

resolves the Kurdish problem peacefully, it will remove a very important pressure in its democratic

development. That affects the overall quality of Turkish democracy. If we can get rid of this problem,

we can discuss other problems more peacefully and more rationally.

How likely is Turkey to solve the Kurdish problem?

At this point, Id like to express hope, but its a long, arduous road full of pitfalls. We all have to be

careful with our statements.

Profile

Professor Ergun zbudun, one of Turkeys top constitutional professors, currently teaches at ehir

University in stanbul. He taught at Bilkent University in Ankara for many years. He received his juris

doctor degree from Ankara University in 1962. Prior to this, he was a professor at the Ankara

University School of Law and a visiting professor at Columbia University, Princeton University and the

University of Chicago in the US as well as the Sorbonne in Paris. He was also a research fellow at

Harvard and Georgetown universities and a Lester Martin Fellow at the Hebrew University of

Jerusalem. He is a member of the Turkish Academy of Sciences.

7/29/2019 ergun zbudun

6/6

Among his 10 books in Turkish and English are Social Change and Political Participation in Turkey;

Party Cohesion in Western Democracies: A Causal Analysis; Contemporary Turkish Politics:

Challenges to Democratic Consolidation; and The Role of the Military in Recent Turkish Politics.

He is also the co-editor of Electoral Politics in the Middle East: Issues, Voters, and Elites; The

Political Economy of Income Distribution in Turkey; Atatrk: Founder of a Modern State;

Competitive Elections in Developing Countries; and Perspectives on Democracy in Turkey.