AKP reforms will intensify tensions between the government and the judiciary and deepen already dangerous divisions in Turkish society, warns Gareth Jenkins The ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) has proposed changes to the country's constitution, heralded as a major step towards greater democratisation, independence of the judiciary and fulfilment of criteria for EU membership. However, the package of reforms was bitterly attacked by both opposition parties and the judiciary as being an anti- democratic attempt by the AKP to tighten its grip on the apparatus of state. There is a broad consensus that Turkey's existing constitution, which was promulgated in 1982 during a period of military rule, needs to be radically overhauled or even replaced completely. The EU has joined in the criticism, arguing that many of the restrictions embedded in the 1982 constitution are incompatible with Turkey's desire to be accepted as a full EU member. In early December 2007, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan promised that a draft of a completely new constitution would be made public by the end of the month. The draft never appeared. Nor, apart from an ultimately unsuccessful attempt in February 2008 to lift the ban which currently prevents women wearing headscarves from attending university, did the AKP make any substantive attempt to amend the existing constitution. The situation changed in January this year, when the Justice Ministry abruptly stripped a public prosecutor called Ilhan Cihaner of his powers after he claimed to have unearthed evidence of corruption involving leading members of the AKP. Cihaner was subsequently charged by another public prosecutor, Osman Sanal, with membership of an alleged terrorist organisation and imprisoned. The High Council of Judges and Public Prosecutors (HSYK), which oversees judicial personnel, responded with a majority decision dismissing Sanal and three other public prosecutors who were believed to be close to the AKP. The government reacted furiously, accusing the HSYK of having a political agenda. The furor came at a time of rumours in Ankara that Abdurrahman Yalcinkaya, the public prosecutor at the Supreme Court of Appeals, was preparing another closure case against the AKP, similar to the one he filed with the Constitutional Court in March 2008 after the government tried to lift the headscarf ban. On that occasion, the AKP narrowly escaped being banned, receiving a fine of $20 million for allegedly attempting to violate the principle of secularism enshrined in the Turkish constitution. The AKP reacted to the HSYK's dismissal of the four public prosecutors and the rumours of another closure case by preparing a package of constitutional amendments. On Monday, after weeks of speculation, the government finally announced a list of 26 proposed changes, which it said it would bring before parliament at the end of March. Under Turkish law, constitutional amendments require the support of 367 of the 550 members of parliament. However, if the proposed changes receive the support of 330 deputies, the president can opt to put them to a referendum. The AKP currently has 337 deputies, meaning that, unless it can attract support from other parties, the best it can realistically hope for is to get enough votes for the president to call a referendum. The proposed changes include increasing the number of members of both the Constitutional Court and the HSYK, including the appointment of some members by parliament, in the apparent hope of overturning the perceived anti-AKP majorities in both bodies. The constitutional amendments also include a proposal to make any case for the closure of a political party dependent on parliamentary approval, which would effectively enable the AKP to veto any attempt to close it down and allow it to outlaw a rival. The AKP has sugar-coated the package by including a number of proposed amendments which have long been demanded by the EU. These include strengthening gender equality, allowing civil servants to join trade unions though not to go on strike, making serving military personnel liable for prosecution in civilian courts and creating an ombudsman. However, the AKP is insisting that all of the proposed amendments must be voted on as a whole and has portrayed the package as a response to EU calls for greater democratisation. This is misleading. Not only have proposed changes related to closure of political parties and composition of the HSYK and Constitutional Court not been mentioned by the EU, but others could actually contradict EU demands. For example, the AKP's proposed amendments foresee the justice minister retaining a place on the HSYK; something which was explicitly opposed by an April 2009 report commissioned by the EU. The AKP's constitutional amendments have unsurprisingly been condemned by leading members of the judiciary. "We see that, far from leading to the complete independence of the judiciary, these amendments are incompatible with the principle of the separation of powers between the executive and judiciary," said Hassan Gercekler, the head of the Supreme Court of Appeals. If the reform package passes parliament with enough votes to be put to a referendum, the opposition parties are expected to apply to the Constitutional Court for it to be annulled on the grounds that it violates the constitutional provisions on the separation of powers between the legislature and the judiciary. Although the outcome of such a challenge currently remains unclear, the AKP will continue to raise hackles in the status quo as it chips away at the old order.
