Replacing the tendency to use structures designed for balanced state governance as a means of divisiveness and vested interests is more important and urgent than constitutional provisions and structural reforms.
What you should know
The issue of constitutional amendment, reform, and change is getting priority in the chatter and 'discussion' of everyone from Gen-G to the older age group. Elections are being held, but the idea seems to be spreading among Gen-G that the transformation we need cannot come unless specific changes are made to some aspects of the constitution.
Politicians of certain political parties who have been opposed to the current constitutional system from the beginning, some experts related to the constitution, some Gen-G movement and some Gen-G who are at the forefront in the days after the movement consider the change or reform of the current constitution as the primary task.
The immediate solution to the current political transition is undoubtedly the election on 21 Falgun, but the election alone cannot be considered a great achievement. Declaring the questions and dissatisfactions related to the constitution in Gen-G as illogical and unreasonable and not addressing them properly can be like planting another seed of rebellion. Therefore, we all have to make a collective effort to find an answer to the question of whether the constitution is an obstacle to the transformation that we all seek, and especially Gen-G, seek, or is it an acceptable document that guides us.
Without sufficient discussion and debate on questions such as whether the constitution has created obstacles in building a good governance and corruption-free state, the three types of discussion-based ideas currently prevailing in the public sphere regarding constitutional reform seem incomplete. First, to consider the voices of Gen-G who have risen in the context of constitutional reform as meaningless.
Second, to move towards constitutional change by ‘branding’ the ideas put forward by vested interest groups and individuals as Gen-G’s ideas. Third, to consider the continuation of the present as the only option based on the ideas of individuals and groups who continue to uphold the current state structure and constitution as unshakable like religious places and scriptures.
Therefore, only an objective discussion with the active participation of all generations regarding the political and social achievements achieved by the current society as well as the role of the constitution in the distortions created can lead us towards the necessary reform.
Lack of knowledge transfer of the reasons for the formation of the constitution, its justification and weaknesses
The perspective from which the current constitution is viewed from the statutory law of 2004 to the interim constitution of 2063 should be completely different. Moreover, the current constitution even accepts a safe space where it is possible to disagree with the content of this constitution and not believe in its justification. But due to the persistent perception that the constitution is only a document written for legal, theoretical and technical purposes, the general public, especially the majority of the young generation, has not developed any different or unique perspective or sentiment towards the current constitution.
Some politicians, constitutional scholars, legal practitioners or enlightened individuals from civil society consider themselves to have a good and complete understanding of the constitution. When the constitution is presented as if it has the monopoly on itself, it may maintain regular positivity, but as an unintended side of it, the general perception that the constitution is a more aristocratic document may increase. At that time, the attitude of the young generation towards the constitution may be pushed towards negativity and a tendency to separate themselves from the constitution may develop.
If proper knowledge of the current reasons for the creation of any object, such as the historical context, is not regularly transferred to the new generation, it is natural for that object to seem like an outsider. The same situation is seen in the case of the constitution. If everyone connected with the running of the state had played a role in gradually conveying the real essence of the constitution, its shortcomings, and even some complex issues that it failed to cover to the new generation without interpreting it in their own way, there would be no need to say that there is a threat to the constitution. There would also be no need to be confused about the roadmap for reform.
Therefore, the threat seen in the constitution is the weakness of all of us who are trying to protect the constitution. Gen-G is not the generation that was directly involved in the constitution-making process and the political movement before the constitution-making. However, each generation has its own political and constitutional moments. These moments create the right to make certain choices. After the current uprising, opportunities to reflect on such rights of choice have surfaced. However, confusion and uncertainty are narrowing the opportune time. Therefore, it is indispensable to continuously create opportunities to be informed about its justification, the context of its creation, and the purpose of its creation for the progressive reform of the current constitution.
Our Constitution that is being discredited
Is the Constitution the sole and decisive cause of the misery we are facing today? What is written in the Constitution cannot be completely separated from social, economic development and political culture. However, declaring the provisions of the Constitution as the main enemy of development, prosperity and good governance by overshadowing the role of the institutions and characters that make the Constitution operational rather than the Constitution limits the possibilities of real reform.
Even in a changed system, it promotes continuity of the status quo. Even those who played a leading role in the formation of the Constitution do not hesitate to discredit the Constitution. The current Constitution was not made as a result of the will of a single person or the aspirations of a class of people. It certainly does not contain unilateral provisions. In fact, the current Constitution is the result of political and social compromise. When the objectives of good governance and development fail to be achieved and the results of political and administrative inaction are
Rather than pointing fingers at constitutional flaws to cover up, it is logical and wise to question the intentions and working style of the characters who make the constitution work. Replacing the tendency to use the constitutional structure to suit oneself, and to make the structures created for the operation of a balanced state a means of division and vested interests, is a more important and urgent task than the provisions of the constitution and structural reforms.
If we only focus on protection, the voice of change will be suppressed
While saying all this, it is not intended to conclude that no reform is necessary in the constitutional structure. Structural reforms are necessary, but on what issues are reforms necessary? What are the possible reform measures that can be functional in our political, social, and economic environment? Preparing the basis for change without adequate discussion and proper deliberation on such issues increases the risk that individuals and groups motivated by limited interests can benefit from it.
The rebellion took shape because the need for change in the system of state administration was felt. When all efforts are focused solely on preserving constitutional continuity, believing that the achievements of the current constitution are being lost, the constitutional moment and opportunity for choice of the young generation are wasted. But before assessing the need for changes in the constitution, it is necessary to familiarize the new generation with the society that the constitution is trying to build and the basic principles it embraces in every way. Then, the voices of change and reform that will arise will be more logical, strong, and
far-reaching. While moving towards institutionalizing those voices of change, the reform process should not be limited to purely technical and elite practices. In a limited segment, the real desire for change is again marginalized and the next generation also becomes disconnected from both the words and the spirit of the constitution, creating a lack of belonging to the basic framework of state governance.
