TURKPULSE No:64..........MARCH 3rd, 2002
Despite fresh rumours or wishful thinking on the part of certain domestic and external quarters, it is almost certain that there will be no early elections in Turkey in this 5-year term of Parliament. Turkey has finally found a coalition government that has continued for two and a half years and this political stability is needed for the solution of the accumulated social and political problems of the nation. But the real reason for the above assurance about not holding early elections this time rests in a constitutional mechanism that has finally been worked out. For the details of this mechanism and its consequences, please see the article below.
An
innocent remark by PM Ecevit gave way to fresh speculations about early
elections in Turkey. The Prime Minister casually said during the Sacrifice
Holiday that the Government had passed the halfway mark and it was interpreted
as the commencement of the election period. In fact, he was underlining that
on April 19th the present Parliament will have completed its three
years and had just over two more years to go.
Certain
domestic and external quarters eager to say goodbye to the present ruling
tripartite coalition as quickly as possible jumped to the conclusion that
Ecevit’s party, the DSP, had started the election campaign and that the MHP
was following suit with the disputes it has been having especially with ANAP
within the coalition over capital punishment and other similar issues.
The Constitutional mechanism prevents early elections
The
reality is that none of the three ruling parties has any intention of holding
early elections before they ease, if not solve, the current economic crisis
and that will take at least another two solid years.
Also
holding early elections is technically impossible because on April 19th,
1999 general elections were held along with the local elections and local
elections cannot be moved forward, according to a Constitutional Court
verdict.
Article
77 of the Constitution reads:
“Elections
for the Grand National Assembly of Turkey shall be held every five years. The
Assembly may decide to hold new elections before the termination of this
period and new elections may also be decided upon according to a decision,
taken in accordance with the conditions set forth in the Constitution, by the
President of the Republic...”
Paragraph
3 of Article 127 regulating the elections for local administrations is
somewhat different from the above provision. It reads:
“The elections for local administrative bodies shall be held every five years in accordance with the principles set forth in Article 67 of the Constitution. Special administrative arrangements may be introduced for larger urban areas.”
In
late eighties the Ozal Government moved local elections forward with a law,
which was repealed by the Constitutional Court on the grounds that the
Constitution specifies that local elections shall be held every five years. As
the latest local elections were held on April 19th 1999, along with
the general elections, the next local elections have to be held on the first
Sunday after 19 April 2004, according to the relevant ruling of the
Constitutional Court.
Under
these conditions, can there be any early general elections during this term of
Parliament? It is obvious that there will be no early elections this year. So
it leaves behind the spring or autumn of 2003. In either case, it means
holding costly elections throughout Turkey twice in less than a year and this
is not likely at all. Holding early elections in Autumn 2003 is impossible, as
it would mean two major elections within six months.
For
all these reasons, it is almost certain that Turkey will hold the general
elections in April 2004, as all responsible government members expressly say
on every occasion. Yet there is a tradition in Turkey, and it is the fact that
the 5-year term of parliament has never been observed so far and early
elections have been held each time since the proclamation of the 1982
Constitution. Instrumental in this unhealthy development for political
stability in Turkey is the influence of external sources such as pressure from
the United States or the European Union and the international finance
institutions controlled by them.
Completion
of the 5-year period is needed for reforms and strategic designs
The
coalition parties seem to be determined to complete their 5-year term this
time and Turkey needs such a determination for the elimination of the residue
left from populist policies introduced by frequent elections. In the Sixties
and Seventies, there were elections every year in accordance with the 1962
Constitution. Under that constitution that was based on a bicameral system,
the Senators used to be elected for six years, but one-third of the Senate
used to be renewed. Senate elections were, therefore, held every other year.
General and local elections used to be held every four years in between the
Senate elections, which meant elections every year in this country.
Turkey
suffered a lot from the populist policies of these constant election periods
of the 1962 Constitution. The 1982 Constitution both disbanded the Upper House
and extended the election periods to five years for both the National Assembly
and local elections, with an eye to political stability.
But
because of proportional representation, there was still no single political
party that had a majority in Turkey in the general elections held under the
1982 Constitution, other than the 1983 election where the political bans of
the September 12th (1980) interregnum were still in force.
Consequently, no radical reforms could be made in Turkey in the last two
decades. The present Ecevit Government is clearly an exception and has carried
out 35 constitutional amendments, as well as banking and economic reforms, in
accordance with the EU’s and the international finance institutions’
demands.
The
architect of this healthy development for the Turkish democracy is clearly the
ANAP leader, Mesut Yilmaz, who joined hands with the Left’s leader, Bulent
Ecevit, in the previous Parliament and continued with it in the present
parliamentary term. In neither case was it enough for the Yilmaz-Ecevit
partnership to have the majority in Parliament, but the 40% or so they had in
Parliament constituted the biggest political force in Turkey and with the
support of the MHP they have been able to form the present coalition
government as a durable legislative and executive power that may rule in
Turkey for five years.
This
tripartite political force is not only carrying out important reforms in
domestic politics and in economic and social life, but also in foreign policy.
A case in point is Mesut Yilmaz’s strenuous efforts to make Turkey a full
member of the EU before the end of the first decade of the new millennium, but
that is not all. There is also Turkey’s new foreign policy of equal
importance for Eurasia, the Caucasus and its region in general ranging from
the Middle East to the Balkans, the Black Sea and the Gulf.
The
first of these deep-rooted foreign policy intentions, ie Turkey’s accession
to the EU, does not go against Washington’s plans. In fact, as President
Clinton has said to Turkish journalists during PM Ecevit’s official visit to
Washington last January, the United States struggled against Germany to help
Turkey in its efforts to become a candidate for the accession negotiations.
The Americans made a realistic assessment of Turkey’s strength and
potentials and asked the Germans and other EU members, ”Do
you want this force to be beside you or up against you?” The
outcome was Turkey’s being the 13th candidate for the EU’s
enlargement.
This American help to Turkey on the EU issue is not, unfortunately the case for Turkey’s Eurasia or other foreign policy intentions for its own region. Leaving aside the differences over the Iraq issue, Turkey’s efforts to have close relations with all its neighbours also go against Washington’s strategies, but PM Ecevit is determined to bring a regional cooperation to life before he leaves power. That is where the external efforts to topple this coalition come into the picture. Engineering conditions to force Turkey into early elections is the easiest way of putting a spoke in the wheel of these foreign policy developments, but these efforts are bound to be frustrated this time for the reasons explained above, unless the superpower machinations work out other devices for it. uras@ada.net.tr - March 3rd, 2002