In an environment where we feel and personally experience a decline in trust in justice and the politicization of justice, Yılmaz Tunç, the Minister of Justice, who repeatedly reminds citizens that “Turkey is a state of law”, that judges are impartial and independent, and that no one can give instructions and makes citizens smile, said in his New Year's message, “We will strive to bring a new and democratic constitution to our country that prioritizes fundamental rights and freedoms, is inclusive and includes the views of all segments of society.”.
Since the November 3, 2002 general elections, the Justice and Development Party (AKP), which has governed our country since then, has been repeating the rhetoric of ’new-Turkey“ and ”new-Constitution“. Until recently, efforts were being made to amend the Constitution, but now the ”new-Constitution“ discourse has been voiced loudly and preparations have begun to put it into practice.
In the process known in public opinion as the new resolution process, a commission called the “National Solidarity, Fraternity and Democracy Commission” was established in the Turkish Grand National Assembly in order to prepare the necessary legal regulations and public opinion for the process to be carried out following the dissolution and arms-burning demonstration of the separatist terrorist organization PKK. This “Commission” held its first meeting on August 5 under the chairmanship of Numan Kurtulmuş, the Speaker of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey, and started its work with 48 members, since the Good Party did not provide a member, although the Commission was intended to consist of 51 members and include all political parties with groups and representation in the Parliament.
Kurtulmuş stated that following the visit of one member each from the AKP, MHP and DEM Party to PKK leader Abdullah Öcalan on November 24, 2025 on İmralı Island, where he was serving his sentence, 134 individuals and organizations had been wiretapped up to that date; that the meeting with Öcalan marked the end of the wiretapping phase; and that the process had entered the most sensitive and fragile period.
“In this fragile period, which was presented to the public with the discourse of ”Terror-Free Turkey“, it is understood that the stage of legal regulations will now begin and that the discourse of ”Terror-Free Turkey“ will be used to build public opinion and gain public support in putting into practice the discourse of the ”new-Constitution".
“I think it is necessary to understand what kind of Turkey is envisioned with the discourse of the ”new constitution". For this, it is necessary to look at the discourse of those who are voicing this discourse.
It would be useful to look at the justifications of Numan Kurtulmuş, the President of the Turkish Parliament, for the “new Constitution”. It is understood that Mr. Kurtulmuş, in his capacity as the President of the Turkish parliament, has undertaken a task regarding the “new Constitution” and has endeavored to prepare the political environment. The method he followed was first to initiate the “new Constitution” process by holding separate meetings with the parties represented in the Turkish Grand National Assembly, then to involve non-governmental organizations, universities, institutions and organizations in the process, and finally to establish a commission called the “National Solidarity, Fraternity and Democracy Commission” in the Turkish Grand National Assembly. I believe that this “Commission” should be seen as a facilitating “tool” to put the “new Constitution” discourse into practice.
Kurtulmuş frequently mentions the new constitution in his speeches, and his justifications for the drafting of a “new constitution” can be deduced from his speeches on various dates.
Kurtulmuş, who stated that the new Constitution could be based on the 1921 Constitution, bypassing the 1924 Constitution, the first Constitution of the “Republic” drafted by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, said in an iftar program he attended on April 2, 2024, ’Just like in the 1921 Constitution, Turkey has the opportunity to make a participatory, strong constitution in this Parliament.“ Kurtulmuş stated that it is essential for Turkey to ”...get rid of this antidemocratic structure, that spirit brought by September 12...“.
Kurtulmuş argued that Turkey has always been governed by coup d'état constitutions in its 150-year history (which roughly corresponds to the first Constitution of the Ottoman Empire in 1876). In the 1921 Constitution, there was no Republic, there was no secularism, there was no Turkish nation, and the caliphate and sultanate remained in place. The ’republican“ regime came into being with the 1924 Constitution.
Kurtulmuş also claimed that there was a reaction from some circles that ‘in order to make a constitution, you need a constituent assembly’; that the Assembly that approved the constitution of the 1960 coup was a constituent assembly; that the Assembly that approved the 1982 Constitution was a constituent assembly; that the Assembly elected by this nation can make a constitution and that Turkey should get rid of the coup constitution.
Kurtulmuş also emphasized the need for a constitution centered on the nation, not the state, by stating that Turkey had a constitution centered on the state, not the nation. From these statements, it can be inferred that Kurtulmuş thinks that the constitutions of the Republican period in Turkey were not “national”.
In a live broadcast on TRT Haber on June 22, 2023, Kurtulmuş stated that Turkey's constitutions of 1921 and 1924 were made constitutions, while the constitutions of 1961 and 1982 were written constitutions, and that a constitution that was the product of coups should now be completely renegotiated. This is how the distinction between ’made“ and ”written“ constitutions entered our agenda.
Kurtulmuş emphasized that one of the most permanent failures, one of the most permanent results of the September 12 coup was the September 12 Constitution, which the putschists had built to build a future under their control, and that a constitution was designed based on the will of the appointed instead of the elected, of certain elite groups instead of the national will, which he called “bureaucratic oligarchy”, and that now it was necessary to get rid of this constitution somehow. In fact, he argued that September 12, February 28, April 27 and July 15 were in fact the product of the constitutional system that paved the way for the putschist tradition. According to Kurtulmuş, it is time to get rid of the 1982 Constitution, which paved the way for the putschist tradition.
According to Kurtulmuş, the new Constitution is, in short;
- It must be a new constitution in spirit, language and content.
- We need a civilian constitution that puts the national will and the idea of national sovereignty at its center.
- It should be a constitution that expands and guarantees individual rights and freedoms.
- It should be a constitution in which all different segments of society find themselves represented.
- It should be a constitution based on our civilizational values.
President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's justifications for the “new Constitution” are also noteworthy.
On April 22, 2024, while answering the questions of journalists on the plane upon his return from a visit to Iraq, President Erdoğan emphasized that they would bring up the issue of the new constitution when Özgür Özel, who is rumored to have been elected as the CHP's chairman after a ’shady convention“, was interviewed and said, ”We will not stop working on the new constitution, which is one of the most important cornerstones of our vision of the Turkish Century.“.
What is Erdoğan's vision for the Century of Turkey? At the AKP's ’Century of Turkey“ promotional meeting on October 28, 2022, Erdoğan said that the ”Republic“ had not been able to live in peace within itself for a significant part of its century-long history, that our country had wasted years of golden years in the hands of administrations that were guided by the forces of tutelage instead of relying on the supremacy of the national will, that tutelage forces had tried to shut down their parties, and that they had always struggled, He stated that they sought the solution only in the power of the national will, that they stood by the Muslims who were excluded because of their faith, the Kurds who were discriminated against because of their language, the Alevis who were oppressed because of their religion, the Christians and Jews who were subjected to injustice, in short, everyone who was wronged by the tutelage in this country, that they supported their struggle and compensated their losses.
In his speech, he said, “Just the fact that we have reopened Hagia Sophia, which was the dream of generations, as a mosque in accordance with Fatih's trust, is a great challenge against the global tutelage....” and added, “By working with love, strengthening the national will, we have step-by-step regressed the tutelage. By rooting democracy, we have eliminated the conditions that prepare the ground for coups one by one. By ensuring security, we have ensured that our people live today in peace and look to the future with hope.”.
Erdoğan said that there were also things that they had not been able to realize despite their efforts, and added: “Foremost among these are our attempts to rid our country of the shame of the coup d'état constitution and to introduce a completely new, civilian, democratic and libertarian constitution.”.
“The shelf life of the September 12 coup d'état constitution, which was prepared to serve tutelage down to its cells, has long expired,” Erdoğan said.
Stating that the constitution that constituted the legitimate basis of the National Struggle was drafted and put into effect in 1921, that is, in the most violent days of the war, and that this constitution alone was sufficient to show the sensitivity of our nation and those who governed the country regarding legal legitimacy, Erdoğan emphasized that the subsequent constitutions of 1924, 1960 (1961) and 1982 each had their own stories about their own periods. Erdoğan stated that they aim for a constitution that prioritizes people, reflects the diversity and richness of the nation, and adds dynamism to society rather than lagging behind it.
It is possible to draw inferences about Erdoğan's strategy and ultimate goal from some of his speeches. In one of his speeches he said, “The headscarf is a matter of patience. Even the Koran came down in 23 years. Even alcohol was banned gradually at that time.” Making a distinction between “physical condition” and “legal condition”, Erdoğan talked about the need to prepare the society and mentioned that even a birth takes 9 months. Erdoğan said, “If it is born prematurely, it can be crippled. The important thing is that it is born healthy. The headscarf is a right, it is a birthright.” In another speech, he talked about a “silent revolution”. In other words, by keeping his true thoughts to himself, Erdoğan is following a strategy of gradually and gradually moving towards his real goal as he believes that he has turned the circumstances in his favor.
Erdoğan frequently uses the words “One Nation”, “One Homeland”, “One Flag” and “One State” in his speeches. Erdoğan's speech in Gaziantep/Nizip on January 20, 2013 indicates that he uses the words “nation” and “nation” with the awareness of the content differentiation between the concepts of “nation” and “nation”.
Erdoğan said, “....In this country, those who pretend to be nationalists tried to block our way, they could not and they will not be able to. Those who are candidates to be an extension of the nationalists should not expect anything from us, they will not find it. We are the representatives of the nation. You have set our course. We will continue to walk on this route....” As can be easily deduced from this speech, Erdoğan positions himself as the representative of the “nation” while opposing “nationalism” based on the Turkish nation-state concept founded by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk.
In another speech he delivered at Gaziantep Karataş Sports Hall on January 19, 2013, he said, “In 2001, we said ’one nation‘, we said ’one flag‘, we said ’one homeland‘, we said ’one state‘. We said ’no‘ to ethnic nationalism. We said ’no” to ethnic nationalism. The Turk, the Kurd, the Kurd, the Lazi, the Abkhaz, the Circassian, the Circassian, the Georgian, the Romani are all our lives. We will love the created because of the Creator. Can we say; the Turk has a sin, the Kurd has a sin. The decision of being Turkish, being Kurdish, being Laz, being Bosnian, being Georgian is not made by him. It is the Creator who decides.".
Erdoğan's speech in Siirt on March 9, 2013 in which he said, ’...we said “we do not recognize the policies of denial, rejection and assimilation‘....’ is in fact an expression of a widespread criticism of the construction of the state founded by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk as a ”nation-state“. Again, an important sign of the difference in understanding between the concept of ”nation“ and the concept of ”nation“ is the issue of ”language“.
While Erdoğan frequently uses the expressions “One Nation”, “One State”, “One Flag”, “One Homeland”, he never uses the concept of “One Language”. However, when “One Language” is used in the sense of “Nation”, it is defined as an inseparable integral part of the concept of “Nation”. As a matter of fact, in Turkey, which was established as a “nation-state”, “One State”, “One Flag”, “One Homeland” and “One Language” are used within the definition of “Nation/Nation” in traditional discourses.
When all the points in Erdoğan's discourse that are used as justification for the “new Constitution” are considered in their entirety, it is understood that instead of the Turkish nation-state understanding established by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk and embodied in the 1924 Constitution, a new state that will be embodied by the concept of “Nation”, which is based on the understanding of Islamic civilization and also means “Ummah”, is desired to be established. The fact that the concept of “Nation” can refer to both “Ummah” and “Nation” with an expansion of meaning can actually allow the discursive difference to escape attention.
“The approach of the ”Millet Alliance“ to the ”Constitutional Amendment" is also noteworthy.
It is noteworthy that the constitutional amendment package prepared by the so-called Six Table group of the Millet Alliance consisting of the CHP, İyi Parti, DP, Saadet, Deva and Gelecek Parties also refers to the 1921 Constitution and is close to the AKP government in its evaluations of the constitutions of the “Republican” period. In the Six Table's declaration titled “Strengthened Parliamentary System” dated February 28, 2022, under the title “C. We Propose a New System”, the sentence “The State of the Republic of Turkey, which was established following the relative inclusiveness of the 1921 Constitution, has entered into narrower molds in its subsequent Constitutions.” is included, while the 1924 Constitution is not mentioned.
It was stated that the 1961 Constitution, although it introduced many new and important regulations, was drafted following a military coup that interrupted our multi-party political life; accordingly, it granted powers incompatible with democracy to some bureaucratic institutions, particularly the armed forces, and thus led to a bureaucratic tutelage order. The 1982 Constitution was also a product of the coup d'état period, and while preserving the bureaucratic institutions and tutelary approach of the previous Constitution, it stipulated provisions restricting fundamental rights and freedoms.
The narrow molds of the past were rejected; a new construction where the national will is manifested, which will not allow the problems of democracy and tutelary practices caused by past practices by benefiting from the experiences of the past, was mentioned.
The approach of the Peoples“ Democratic Party (HDP) and its successor, the DEM Party, to the ”new Constitution" is also noteworthy.
“One of the most striking aspects of the ”New Constitution“ is the intellectual closeness of the representatives of Kurdish political movements in the Turkish parliament with the AKP government. Mithat Sancar, Co-Chairman of the Peoples” Democratic Party (HDP), which is currently facing a closure case, said in a statement: “We propose a strong parliamentary, strong local democracy. The 1921 Constitution, which includes these local principles, can be considered as a source of inspiration”, and then AKP Justice Minister Abdülhamit Gül said, "We will crown the Republic with the spirit of the 1921 Constitution".
DEM Party Co-Chairperson Tülay Hatimoğulları, in a special session of the Turkish National Assembly on April 23, 2024, argued that the 1924 Constitution of Turkey has made ‘historical denial’ and an understanding of ignoring differences dominant. Hatimoğulları also stated that “The monist political understanding that was in effect before 1920 was transformed into the rigid and systematic reasoning of the new nation state with the 1924 Constitution. Historical denial takes its basic references from the 24th Constitution, which ignores all the differences of the country. Unfortunately, all subsequent constitutions have been bad copies of the 1924 Constitution in terms of creating a single type of citizen, centralization and denial.
Today, one of the most fundamental needs of Turkish society is a democratic constitution. The way out of the crises in the second century of the Republic is through the updating of the social consensus made in the spirit of 1920 and in 21.’.
From all these explanations, it is understood that the majority of the ruling and opposition parties in the National Assembly of the Republic of Turkey desire a constitution based on the 1921 Constitution, including the 1924 Constitution that gave birth to the “Republic”, and see the subsequent constitutions as narrow and tutelary constitutions. In a way, the “Republic” seems to have become “Nobody's Republic”, the title of a book by sociologist and socialist Kadir Cangızbay.
On April 16, 2017, Turkey switched to a presidential system called the Presidential Government System.
It is clear that the constitutional amendment in question is the biggest cause of the problems Turkey has been plunged into. It is understood that those who are now bringing a brand new constitution to the agenda are actually trying to save their own political future.
Since they do not have sufficient political power, efforts have been made to persuade other political parties in the Turkish Parliament for a new Constitution and they have made some concessions; however, it does not take a clairvoyant to foresee that those who do not even comply with the provisions of the constitution amended during their own term will disregard the provisions of the new constitution that will reinforce their political power.
I believe that no one should expect the founding philosophy of the Republic of Turkey and the qualities of the “Republic” to be abandoned.
There is no need to evoke unity of powers instead of separation of powers and different administrative structures instead of unitary structure by referring to the 1921 Constitution, which was drafted during the War of Independence, even before the establishment of the Republic of Turkey, under the conditions of the period. The so-called 1921 Constitution is, in fact, a Basic Organization Law, and the Ottoman State's Law-i Esasi of 1876, which was based on the “Nation System”, was in force. It may be overlooked by some, but I believe it is not overlooked by neo-Ottomanist or neo-Islamist circles.
Let's follow the common mistake and continue to call it the 1921 Constitution. The 1921 Constitution clearly states that the state's religion is Islam, its official language is Turkish, it is based on the principle of unity of powers, Sharia provisions are valid and there is a “federal” approach to governance. The 1921 Constitution was adopted under the conditions of the time, and at the stage when its “temporariness” ended and it completed its task, it was repealed and replaced by the 1924 Constitution, which was in line with the Republic of Turkey, which was established and proclaimed on October 29, 1923, and its founding philosophy.
Putting aside the 1924 Constitution, the first constitution of the Republic of Turkey, and characterizing the 1961 and 1982 Constitutions together as coup d'état constitutions, in essence, means coming to terms with the understanding symbolized in the life story of M.K. Atatürk, which embodied the nation-state understanding and the new-state.
While emphasizing the coup d'état constitution, the political power wants to make us forget the environment in which the Presidential Government System was adopted. The Presidential Government System was adopted with the April 16, 2017 referendum. Despite being one of the most important constitutional amendments in Turkey's political history, the referendum process was held under the state of emergency declared after the July 15 coup attempt.
It is clear that the national will was not reflected in the ballot box in a healthy manner; in fact, there was a strange situation such as the counting of unsealed votes.
The Presidential Government System has led to personalization and arbitrariness in governance; it has created an authoritarian government by granting the President very broad and uncontrolled powers that put the legislature, executive and judiciary under his control. The unification of the presidency of the party and the presidency of the state and the government in the person of a single person, and the party President has further deepened the country's problems.
The only similarity between Turkey's current political regime and the regime established by the 1921 Constitution is that both are based on the principle of unity of powers, not separation of powers. However, whereas today's Turkish system concentrates all powers in the President of the Republic, the 1921 Constitution concentrated all powers in the Grand National Assembly of Turkey (TBMM), creating a system of “parliamentary government” that has very few examples in the world. Subsequently, with the declaration of the ’Republic“ on October 29, 1923, the name of the regime was established and with the 1924 Constitution, the spirit and understanding of the regime was established as the Turkish nation-state.
A new constitution means a “constitutive constitution”. The term “constitutive constitution” is used in the sense of the total collapse of a state order and the establishment of a completely different state order in its place. There is no collapsed state order in Turkey. The “Republican” regime, which has left behind its centennial, is standing firm and will continue to stand.
It is clear that a democratic constitution cannot be expected from the current political government, even considering its political discourse and practice since 2003. It can be understood that there is a reckoning with the “Turkish-nation-state” and that the aim is to overthrow the current regime and establish a “new state”, a “Nation-State” as I call it, with a new spirit and understanding, hiding behind the understanding of Islamic civilization and the breadth of use of the word “Nation” referring to the “Ummah”.
In the face of this situation, I am of the opinion that all political parties and social segments that are loyal to the ’Republic“ established on October 29, 1923 under the leadership of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk and the Turkish nation-state and its understanding, which was created with the 1924 Constitution that gave spirit to this ”Republic“, should not be a tool of the ”new Constitution“ deception.
In order for Turkey to become a country of modern, democratic and happy people, it would be much more appropriate to first get rid of the political Islamist mentality that has ruled the country since 2003, and then address the issue of the ’Constitution“ on the basis of the founding understanding.
Otherwise, it would be absurd to expect a “modern constitution” from the current political environment and the political mentality in power, to hope for solutions to ethnic or religious/sectarian problems, or to envision a more democratic Turkey. These are problems that can only be solved by mindsets that have no problem with the principles and revolutions of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, that desire Turkey to be a constituent part of civilization, that seek the ideal in the future, not the past.