Turks must be pinching themselves to ensure that they are not dreaming. An opposition politician has actually offered to back constitutional changes that will allow his rival, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, leader of the country’s new moderate Islamist government, to overcome a ban that stops him from becoming an MP and taking his place as prime minister.
This is a level of statesmanship which, for years, has been virtually unheard of in Turkey’s democratic politics. Turkish politicians have regularly disgraced themselves by pursuing personal vendettas and placing their own good and that of their political cronies before that of their country. It has been this inability to focus on an ever more pressing economic and social agenda, which has allowed the republic to drift like a rudderless hulk, from one financial crisis to another. Yet, here we have Deniz Baykal, the leader of the opposition Republican Peoples Party, offering to back constitutional changes, which will overcome Erdogan’s exclusion from political office, because of a dubious conviction for inciting religious hatred. Such a change would allow the leader of the AKP, who has clearly won the confidence of the majority of the Turkish electorate, to take up the position to which he is entitled.
Euphoria at this development should not however get out of hand. There are a number of considerations that should be borne in mind. First, Baykal has made his support for this particular constitutional change dependent upon the new government abandoning its plans for other revisions to a constitutional document drafted by the outgoing military government in 1981. A case can be made that the document is inadequate for a state that is seeking to press full steam ahead its application for European Union membership.
It would be a mistake to limit debate on the constitution’s quality to the single issue of a convicted person being entitled to hold office. Indeed, in the normal course of events, keeping such a provision might even be desirable. Erdogan’s conviction was widely seen as a scandal, with the charges being trumped up. It is perhaps the conviction that ought to be quashed rather than this part of the constitution amended.
Then there is the question of whether Baykal can carry other members of his party with him. There may now be only two parties in the Turkish Parliament, but this is a building that has long hosted splits and revolts and factionalism.
Perhaps, however, the greatest danger is a loss of time and so of opportunity. The AKP government under the premiership of Abdullah Gul enters office with the most overwhelming mandate since Turgut Ozal replaced the generals 21 years ago. Much is expected of it. It must be seen to begin its business as quickly as possible, continuing the reform of the country’s often brutal police force, pressing ahead with the substantial reduction of the state sector’s stultifying role in the economy and instituting a whole raft of reforms, both political and commercial, necessary to qualify Turkey for EU membership.
In such circumstances, maybe the government should not be tempted into making constitutional reform a priority. Erdogan can perhaps function just as well for the present, as party leader outside of Parliament. When the real work is well under way, then the constitutional issues can engaged.
