Tuesday, March 23, 2010

Constitution Making: “What Not To Wear!”

There has been a long tradition of associating Turkish Constitutions with dress sizes: The 1961 Constitutions was “two sizes too large” –read: too liberal in terms of individual rights and liberties.
Or take the most recent, 1982 Constitution. It’s considered to be way too small and bursting out from the seams. According to some, the 1982 Constitution is more like a straitjacket that holds back any democratic initiative in the country.
Spring is here and so is another season for the debates over constitutional reform. With the fabulously funny BBC show “What Not to Wear!” in mind, this author is going to make some suggestions about a reformed or altogether new Constitution of Turkey. Here we go:

1. Look for a classic, timeless piece: Very often we get carried away by the spurs of the moment. However, most of these impulsive decisions turn out to be unsuitable, inappropriate, or down right hideous. Think about the ‘80s… Yep, those terribly puffed up hair does, perms, and the OMG-what-were-we-thinking shoulder pads! With hindsight, most of us who has photos from this wacko era that are tucked deep in our closets would agree that we would’ve been better off with more classic and timeless outfit choices. Now, the same principle could easily be transplanted to the world of constitution making. Instead of a fashionable, contemporary text that would please the crowds now but would stick out like a sore thumb in a decade or two, why not try to come up with a classic and subtle look that covers the basics and can be adapted according to the future needs? Indeed, I am trying to make the case for that little black dress. It is never out of fashion and would save your rear end both in weddings and in funerals. Just find the right accessories for the particular occasion and you are good to go!

2. Less is More: Please, please avoid the unnecessary, dangling pieces at all costs. Try to come up with a neat and clean look. Layers and layers of clothing with lots of jewelry and a heavy make up would most likely make you look like a clown, no matter how expensive the price tag on each item is. Also, piling up all that expensive stuff upon your body would be the definite sign of tackiness rather than sophistication. Same principle applies to the constitutions. Try to avoid the temptation to include everything about everything. Keep it to a basic minimum. More articles would mean more detail and if you go down that slippery slope and keep adding, you’d inevitably compromise the quality of the text. Keep it to a minimum.

3. Get a Second Opinion, A Third or even Forth, if You Can: This is why wise shoppers go shopping in the company of honest, reliable friends. No matter how much faith you have in your own taste in style, it is always good to have a second pair of eyes to comment. This is where the tough love approach of the What Not To Wear folks comes in handy. When you hear their outrageous statements, such as “Oh darling, you really need something to cover that enormous bum of yours!” Or “Sweetie, you have a fabulous cleavage, why don’t you show it?” it is all for the better. In the end, having a second and more critical opinion would definitely improve your choices. And the same goes for the constitutions. You might like the text you have. You might be terribly proud of it. But do not hesitate to expose it to a critical review if you really want to improve its quality and appeal.
This is my humble advice to all those who are busy with sketching a new constitution in this spring season.
Goodbye and good luck,
The Reform-Weary Academic Mommy

1 comment:

  1. The problem is that Turkey is in a nearly perfect conundrum. In order for democratic consolidation to break from its arrested state, it's necessary to radically amend the existing constitution or start afresh with far greater protections to the usual political rights of speech, organization, petition, and all others concerning a vibrant civil society. However, relative to suggestion 3, getting a second, much less third opinion on the character of any reform package is nearly impossible given the extreme polarization that is present in parliament, judicial system, and mass pubic. Simply put, consensus building is nearly impossible.

    We're left in a situation where only a few political parties are in a position to affect real change, and their mistrust of the others' motives is nearly absolute. Couple this with the fact that the junta's constitution deliberately disentangles civil society organizations from the political parties, we're left in a position where the very groups that need to press for those rights cannot find viable avenues of interest articulation and aggregation.

    Needless to say, constitution building requires major consensus building, and consensus seems to be in short supply ever since the end of the single party regime. Perhaps this is why the only times when Turkey engages in major constitutional revisions is when it is imposed by the military with the nation looking down the barrel of a gun. Unfortunately, simply shifting institutional arrangements is not going to foster the liberalization that is necessary for a sea change in political culture.

    I'm with the mommy on this one, reform is absolutely necessary to break the arrested democratic development of Turkey, but I'm not holding my breath.

    IF the AKP can pull this off and offer up a constitutional package that broadly expands and protects political and individual rights, and brings greater accountability to shady parts of the state -all by reaching out far beyond their electoral base- they'd have my vote. If I could vote that is.

    ReplyDelete