In referendums two options are presented. Either you will say “yes” or “no”. Choosing one of these options is possible and legitimate within the boundaries of democratic action. People can vote for or oppose the proposed options for one reason or another. Similarly, the discussion on which factors determine the options of people is legitimate, as well.  

In the elections at The Grand National Assembly of Turkey (TBMM), particularly The Republican People’s Party (CHP) indicated that they had approved all the articles except three. However, today it seems that the CHP opposes the articles that they had approved before. Accordingly, the arguments of the CHP regarding the constitutional reform package do not seem convincing from the beginning.

Honestly, seeing that one of the aforesaid three articles (about closing a political party) have already been nullified, now there are only two articles that are a matter of dispute. And keeping discussion only on these two articles has made the issue easier. Indeed the core of the issue is the structure of the Supreme Board of Judges and Prosecutors (HSYK) and the Constitutional Court. And when we focus on the core of the issue, the discussion will be easier by our concentrating on the technical part without too many words.

However, it seems that it is easier said than done. The proposed amendment is said to tie jurisdiction to the administration; but when focused on the technical part, the content of the package does not have anything with these criticisms. Today there is the HSYK power, which has the capability to bring the cases to the desired conclusions by appointing the judges and prosecutors they wish at the same time. This jurisdiction apparently comes out as a side in all important cases. Until now the Board have been running their business quiet and retiring; for no one has said stop. That is why, the Susurluk case, which triggered the hope of “pure society” in Turkey years ago, has shattered all hopes due to this jurisdiction system.

Much more importantly, there is no one who does not know that bringing the case on massacres in Gazi neighborhood, Madımak to a conclusion is related to jurisdiction. When the organization representatives, who say that they have been speaking for Alevi people for years, ask why the individuals responsible for this have not been found yet, the position where they will go, is not nowhere but the judicial system shaped by the HSYK.

Of course every individual is free to make his/her choice and this is a requirement of democracy. But, why the Alevi people, who are supposed to have the biggest problem with the judicial system, oppose to a reform which will shape the judicial system in a good way, sticks in one’s mind.

Is it normal if the NGOs  indicate their votes for referendum or general elections on behalf of the groups and members the NGOs represent? The present debate between The Turkish Industrialists’ and Businessmen’s Association (TUSIAD) and the Prime Minister, invites us to take this into account as a question. TUSIAD is an association showing its partiality both for the debates on constitution in the past and for many issues today, which affects its all members. Therefore, the fact that TUSIAD’s reluctance for indicating its vote, can be interpreted in a different way.

The prudence shown by the chairman for a club whose members are restricted such as TUSIAD, is of course more expected from the people acting for a religious community. Chairman of Alevi Bektashi Federation Ali Balkız, the General President of the European Federation of Alevi Communities Turgut Öker, and the General President of Hacı Bektas Veli Anatolian Cultural Foundation Ercan Geçmez have indicated their votes on behalf of all Alevi people by publishing a proclamation starting with “We, as Alevi people”. How true or how possible is this? Do the Alevi people in large numbers have a representative mechanism that can speak for them in such a certain manner? If the answer is yes, then it is indeed doom and gloom for Alevi people. To tell the truth, once they speak for all Alevi people, an attitude which supposes that they will be after them (all Alevi people), regards Alevi people as a tribe. And above all this is a disregard for Alevi people.

The content of the proclaim is an utter catastrophe. We do not have enough room for its details; yet some sentences are as follows:

“The Justice and Development Party (AKP), which has been in power for 8 years, will come with a Mu’awiyah (Mu'awiyah bin Abi-Sufyan) game.” To give examples from religious figures and analogies in politics, is contrary to secularism; although it is used as a metaphore, it strongly pushes the limits of a metaphore. While talking in a language which is clearly taking advantage of history and religious discourse for political struggles, again should not Prophet Ali regarded as the one who sees his opponent as Mu’awiyah?

Balkız and his friends, who condemned all the steps of the present administration with the same religious terms in their other statements, argue -without analyzing the constitutional reform package thoroughly- that the administration will be one more step closer to sharia with this referendum.

Now should it be dealt with by correcting the bad suspicion on the issue or should it be dealt with by showing the conflict in the fact that one, who should have the discipline of “Four Doors, Forty Levels”, hates sharia that much? No matter how you slice it, this discourse proves that how those, who say that they are demanding equal citizenship for their people in Turkey, immoderately overbearing and disrespectful towards their own people.

Do not the attitude which regards Alevi people as a tribe and their wills as property (of their own) bother Alevi people?

(Published on Yeni Şafak [newspaper] on August 21, 2010).