BY ERDAL SAFAK
SABAH- I've read the draft constitution drawn up by Prof. Ergun Ozbudun and his colleagues. Here are my first impressions:
The text is full of spelling errors and lacks a unity of language, which has made me think that it wasn't written by one person.
Both in the articles and the preamble, a lot of old words, which can be replaced by more modern ones, were used.
The text lacks care. For instance, while the 1982 Constitution is referred to the expression `It was amended more than 10 times' is used. Such an expression clearly doesn't suit the gravity of a constitution. The last part of the current Constitution includes the exact number: It was amended 13 times from 1987 to 2007.
It also includes some expressions which may lead to different comments, arguments and even accusations of `vindictive'. For instance the beginning of the preamble writes `None of the constitutions of the Republic of Turkey has been accepted as a product of a discussion and conciliation process by parliaments consisting of members elected by people of their free will.
Thus, it puts forth that the parliaments enacting the 1924, 1961 and 1982 Constitutions weren't composed of real representatives elected by people of their free will. Let's leave the 1961 and 1982 Constitutions aside, as the former was drawn up by the Constitutional Assembly formed by the Committee of National Unity and the latter was prepared by the Advisory Committee formed by the National Security Council. But isn't it unfair to put the second parliament, the members of which were elected and drew up the 1924 Constitution into play? That parliament proclaimed the republic and passed the revolution laws enlisted in the new draft constitution prepared by Ozbudun and his colleagues. Implying that that parliament was embodied by `the sole elector' Mustafa Kemal Ataturk (as I can understand from the expression) opens the door for casting a shadow on not only the legitimacy of the second parliament but also the republic it proclaimed and the laws it enacted, which led the way for Turkey's modernization. It's a shame!
I have got another impression I would like to share. Prof. Ozbudun and his colleagues seem to forget a lot of things in a rush to complete the draft as quickly as possible. I'll cite an example on the duties and powers of the president. The 1924, 1961 and 1982 Constitutions all say that the president accredits representatives of the Turkish state to foreign states and receives the representatives of foreign states appointed to the Republic of Turkey. But this duty of the president was forgotten in the new draft constitution. So, won't ambassadors to Turkey present their letters of credentials to the president, then?!