The development of countries, including their democratic institutions, growth and infrastructure, is an ongoing process. Democracy, in particular, has evolved over thousands of years, continually shaped by new demands, reforms and societal expectations for more advanced and sophisticated advancements.
Reform and solution efforts vary according to the problems of the states. While the functioning of a standard democracy is considered a prominent reform for a country in Africa, or the transition to democracy in one of the anti-democratic countries is a revolutionary case, in countries governed by democracy, more advanced steps are always expected.
The Republic of Türkiye has not merely waited for constitutional debates to arise overnight. During the late Ottoman Empire, a constitutional framework, a state administration under the sultan and a parliament of deputies were established. In 1876, with the proclamation of the first constitutional monarchy, the Ottoman Empire adopted its own constitution.
The duality of the Ottoman sultan and Parliament was in some ways similar to British rule. The sultan continued to rule the state, but at the same time, he delegated certain powers to Parliament.
After the establishment of the Republic of Türkiye, a constitution was enacted, followed by a second constitution in 1924. Subsequently, a new constitution emerged following the 1960 coup d'état, and yet another one was instituted after the 1980 coup.
Since 1982, when the Sept. 12 Constitution was established following the coup d'etat, it has undergone continual revisions and reforms. While some aspects of the Constitution have been updated, on the other hand, it has evolved into a patchwork of amendments and modifications.
During a televised debate, I drew an analogy between constitutional amendments and earthquake-damaged buildings. "There are buildings damaged in earthquakes, and government or individuals try to renovate them. Some columns are reinforced. But a building that has been reinforced in this way is never like a new building properly built according to regulations made with the fear of earthquakes," I said.
Similarly, Türkiye's current Constitution, despite numerous amendments, remains akin to a building reinforced with patchy improvements.
In countries with developmental or infrastructural deficiencies or where essential services are not yet established in urban centers, sophisticated social issues are often not on the agenda.
Today, Türkiye has achieved significant milestones in infrastructure development and established comprehensive ecosystems across various government services, ranging from energy, health and education, to other domains. Consequently, there is a pressing need to refine the state's governance structure to ensure more effective organization and management.
In particular, avoiding political fragmentation and social polarization, or a constitutional debate based on consent that encompasses different segments of society and forms the basis of a social contract, has not occurred due to interruptions in our democracy, essentially caused by coups.
Today presents a significant opportunity for this discourse. Türkiye is now poised to embark on more sophisticated realms, such as education reform and constitutional and legal restructuring. While piecemeal approaches have been employed in the past, I believe it would be highly beneficial to overhaul societal organization, commencing with the Constitution and electoral law, thereby fostering a social contract founded upon consent from all parties involved.
Upon the emergence of such a consensual social contract, I anticipate a new, youthful, reform-minded system that is receptive to scientific advancements and simultaneously subject to legal scrutiny and oversight, extending from political party regulations to commercial domains.
Türkiye's transition to a presidential system has facilitated significant strides in expeditious decision-making, leading to substantial progress in addressing infrastructure challenges.
The next phase entails fostering a society built upon trust and consensus, and this society of trust is only possible with a constitution in which everyone participates and with laws that everyone willingly abides by.
Western nations have created a legal and constitutional system and educated their people to abide by it. We lack a society grounded in consent and face challenges in adhering to the law. I believe it would be appropriate to establish a legal and constitutional framework based on mutual agreement, along with dedicated efforts to educate society on these principles.
