TODAY, Turkey voted “yes” on the national referendum to overhaul the current constitution and concentrate power in the hands of the president, snapping one of the last few threads holding even the limited democratic tradition in Turkey from regressing into authoritarian dictatorship.
Over the past 92 years, Turkey has seen three constitutions, each the product of political upheaval and none friendly to democracy. The newest constitution was adopted this January by parliament and was set for a referendum on April 16th. The current Turkish president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan (in power since 2003, first as prime minister and afterwards as a strongman president after the style of Vladimir Putin), and the dominant Justice and Development (AK) party, have promised that the new government structure will act as a safeguard against terrorism, political factionalism and eliminate the possibility of another deeply corrupted political coup like the one that took place last summer. However, the reality of the new constitution is that effectively transfers all governing power from the parliament into the hands of the authoritarian president. If approved, the measure would represent the most dramatic overhaul of the Turkish state structure since the founding of the republic, as it transforms Erdogan from a president that already acts with little restraint into a legally-elected dictator, a “new sultan with the entirety of parliament as his court”, according to political analysts at The Economist.
This is not really want Turks had in mind when they campaigned for a new constitution. In fact, the original constitutional committee established in 2011 to draft the new constitution made it clear that the new charter should provide expanded civilian rights, namely lifting restrictions on free speech, strengthening checks and balances on the executive office and ensuring the independence of the judiciary. The committee collapsed after two years due to political turmoil between the AK and its main opposition, the Republican People’s party.
The revised charter enshrines Mr. Erdogan’s power. It abolishes the office of prime minister, leaving the president fully in charge of the budget, the executive and large portion of the judiciary, while members of parliament retain only minimal powers of scrutiny. Additionally, Erdogan will handpick his own cabinet and other senior officials, and is now posed to remain in office as last as 2030, potentially. Members of Mr Erdogan’s team insist the country needs strong leadership to stave off the turmoil at home and abroad, including terrorist attacks and the war in Syria.
So far, about 99% of ballots have been counted, with a “yes” vote earning 51.33% and the “no’s” 48.67%. The official election result has yet to be announced, but the Republican People’s Party is already demanding a recount of 37% percent of the votes, after having received “thousands of complaints” of voter fraud, and at least one fraud incident caught on camera.
The ramifications will be immediate should the challenge fail. The “yes” vote in the referendum would be a validation of the current leadership style of Mr. Erdogan, characterized by violence against all opposition and reliance on a “state of emergency” in Turkey to act without consulting other government bodies. The result will also impact how Turkey will behave as one of the major external actors in the Syrian civil war.
The victorious “yes” camp argues that a strong, centralized government will make Turkey better able to resolve challenges such as revamping its troubled economy, balancing its enormous Syrian refugee population, maintaining its commitment to anti-terror campaigns and its own civil war against Kurdish insurgents.
Now that Mr. Erdogan has won the referendum, analysts are divided about what he will do next. Some believe he may initially try to rebuild his relations with the West, which were damaged during the referendum campaign as he sought to use invented diplomatic crises to drum up feelings of nationalism and energetic cries for Turkish independence from European dominance at home. However, others believe that Erdogan is unlikely to reach out to the West. Instead, they contend that Erdogan’s instinct is to crush all opposition to his regime, and that the purges will continue as a part of his tightening grip on Turkish society. In their eyes, the past ten years has shown that further centralization of power does not lead to increased stability and a flourishing economy, but more often the opposite.
Sources:
- New York Times, “Erdogan Claims Victory in Turkey Vote Giving Broad New Powers to President”
- New York Times: “Turkey’s Erdogan: Democracy’s Savior or Saboteur?”
- The Economist: “The vote that will determine the fate of Turkey’s democracy”
- The Economist: How Turkey’s constitutional reforms went sour”