ECHOES OF THE PAST : A BRIEF HISTORY OF TURKISH CONSTITUTIONALISM
Qu’est l’histoire? Un écho du passé dans l’avenir. Un reflet de l’avenir sur le passé[1].
(Victor Hugo, L’Homme qui rit, 1869)
Introduction
Even not noticed
by its own actors, each social incident represents -in some way- major
phenomena mainly determined and shaped by history. Indeed, it is almost
impossible to acquire a deep comprehension of any legal change without
(re)viewing the past[2].
Turkey has witnessed a significant constitutional amendment in 2017.
Expectedly, most of the jurists talk and write about positive law. Taking a
different tack, this article will summarize the evolution of Ottoman-Turkish
legal system in order to provide foreign readers with a sufficient historical
background, focusing primarily on constitutional law.
Classical Era (12th – 18th
centuries)
The word Turkey is derived from Medieval Latin, Turchia, which means the land of Turks. Since the beginning
of 12th century, western sources commenced calling Anatolia and
Thrace (a part of southeastern Europe) as Turchia,
for these lands were largely inhabited by Turkic tribes coming from Central
Asia[3].
Ottomans,
which was one of these tribes, succeeded to construct a political unity all
over the Turchia and conquered
Constantinople in 1453. After capturing the capital of Byzantium, Ottoman Sultans began to perceive themselves as emperors
of Rome. For this reason, they showed tolerance towards non-Muslim subjects
(Greeks, Armenians, and Assyrians etc.) and let the state tradition of Eastern
Rome continue[4].
Sultan was an absolute monarch. Even so, Sadrazam
(Grand Vizier) who acted as alter ego
of the Sultan, was holding his seal. Important decisions were being taken at Dîvân-ı Hümâyûn
(Imperial Council), which was de facto
cabinet of Sadrazam[5].
During
the classical period (until 19th century), Ottoman law was composed
of two parts: şer’î hukuk (Islamic
law) and örfî hukuk (customary and
secular law). As a combination of Quran,
hadith and jurisprudence of Islamic
scholars, şer’î hukuk was being applied
by Qadis, who had also some
administrative functions. In terms of private law issues such as marriage and
inheritance, non-Muslim communities had their own courts. Islamic law does not
prescribe concrete rules or provisions regarding to public law, except for
certain crimes and punishments. For this reason, örfî hukuk which consists of edicts and decrees enacted by Sultans
was an independent source of law and had great significance[6].
At that
times, political philosophy was a sort of mixture of Ancient Greek and Islam. So
much so that, while you read a siyasetname
such as Âsafnâme[7]
and Ahlâk-ı Alâî[8],
you feel like Plato or Aristoteles speaks using Islamic terminology. According
to modern sense, the concept of justice necessarily includes equality. However,
in classical Ottoman thought, justice was conceived as maintenance of “natural”
differences and inequalities (between ruling elites and subjects, men and
women, Muslims and non-Muslims), just as Plato suggests in The Republic[9].
For an Ottoman statesman, justice, which means in fact harmony and stability,
was fundamental. In order to prevent chaos, compartments of society had to
remain always separate[10].
Nizam-ı
Cedid and Tanzimat (1792-1876)
Geographical
discoveries, renaissance and enlightenment had reversed the balance of power
between Europe and rest of the world. Selim III, who was pen-friend of Louis
XVI, ascended the throne in 1789. He was the first Sultan to recognize the need
for change and to open up channels of communication towards the West. In this
context, Selim III launched a reform program called Nizam-ı Cedid (New Order) mainly focusing on army and tax
collection system. Permanent Ottoman embassies were also established in London,
Vienna, Berlin and Paris for the first time[11].
Having
assassinated by conservative opponents, Selim III could not be able to
accomplish the New Order program. After a short interruption, Mahmud II, who
was called by religious zealots as Infidel
Sultan[12],
resumed the modernization process in a more profound and determined way. During
his reign, numerous reforms were made, that enabled a centralized, rational and
European-style bureaucracy to emerge. Although being a Muslim, Mahmud II tried
to develop an egalitarian attitude towards non-Muslim subjects[13].
In 1839, The
Edict of Tanzimat (Reorganization) was
promulgated by Abdülmecid, son and successor of Mahmud II. Through this Edict,
Ottoman Empire definitely abandoned its classical conception of justice and the
Sultan clearly declared that:
- Life, honor and property (civic rights) of each
subject will be guaranteed.
- An equitable system of taxation will be introduced.
- All subjects will be equal before the law[14].
In an
effort to fulfill above-mentioned promises, Meclis-i
Vâlâ-yı Ahkâm-ı Adliye (Supreme Council for Judicial Regulations), which is
primordial of today’s parliament and supreme courts, launched an intense
legislative activity. Several codes (such as Penal Code, Commercial Code, Land
Code and Ottoman Nationality Law) were enacted. To apply new rules, first secular
tribunals (nizamiye mahkemeleri) were
established. By this way, competence of Islamic courts was limited to only
familial matters[15].
Kanun-u
Esasî (1876-1921)
Young
Ottomans, which is a secret society composed of leading politicians dissatisfied
with Tanzimat reforms, staged a coup d’état towards Abdülaziz and
enthroned Abdülhamid II on condition of being a constitutional monarch. In 1876, new
Sultan unwillingly signed and promulgated Kanun-u
Esasî (Fundamental Law), the very first constitution of Turkish legal history.
Although the Fundamental Law recognized
basic rights and liberties on paper and reiterated that all Ottomans were equal
before the law regardless of race and religion, it was not an actual reform
since the Sultan preserved most of his prerogatives.
The text
predicted a bicameral legislative organ called Meclis-i Umumî (General Assembly): members of Meclis-i Mebusan (Chamber of Deputies) were to be elected by people
and members of Heyet-i Ayan (Chamber
of Notables) were to be appointed directly by Sultan. Legislative body was permitted
to make laws only if the Sultan approved them, while he could enact decrees
without any restriction. Ministers were solely responsible to the Sultan.
Moreover, the text gave the Sultan the right to exile anyone whom he considered
dangerous to the safety of the state and to dissolve the parliament in case it
was necessary. Hence, Abdülhamid II immediately used these powers with the
excuse of Russo-Turkish War (1877-1878): Prime Minister Mithat Pascha, father
of Kanun-u Esasî, was sent to exile
and the constitutional monarchy was suspended[16].
Followingthirty years of autocracy, İttihat ve Terakki Cemiyeti (Committee
of Union and Progress) led by Young Turks, rebelled against the Sultan and made
a revolution in 1908[17].
The parliament reconvened. One year after, Abdülhamid II was dethroned and the
constitution was revised. Above-mentioned provisions favoring the Sultan were
removed from the text. Thereby, a real constitutional monarchy with multi-party
democracy began. Despite lots of political turmoil caused by ongoing wars, 1909
version of Kanun-u Esasî remained in
force until the total collapse of the Empire[18].
Constitutions of 1921 and 1924
Alongside
Germany, Ottoman Empire was also defeated in First World War. Cabinet of Damat
Ferit signed the Treaty of Sèvres, which was like a death warrant for Turkey.
Many of the major cities such as İstanbul and İzmir were occupied by the Allies
and Greeks. Mustafa Kemal Pascha, hero of Gallipoli, did not accept the
situation and launched a war of independence on 19th May 1919. A new
revolutionist parliament named Türkiye
Büyük Millet Meclisi (The Grand National Assembly of Turkey – TBMM) was
founded in Ankara on 23rd April 1920. After a little while, on 20th
December 1921, TBMM ratified the Teşkilat-ı
Esasiye Kanunu (Law of Fundamental Organization) to be the first
constitution of newly-emerging state.
Constitution
of 1921 was a relatively short text (23 articles) and did not explicitly
abolished Kanun-u Esasî. Written as a
transitional document, it did not include any provisions about the position of
the Sultan at the beginning. On the other hand, it introduced a revolutionary
idea: sovereignty belongs to the nation
without any reservation or condition (article 1).
The governmental
system envisaged by the Constitution of 1921 was quite similar to the régime d’assemblée of French National
Convention (1792-1795) which relied on the absolute domination of National
Assembly over executive and judiciary[19].
Ministers were to be directly appointed and dismissed by TBMM and among its
members. President of TBMM chaired council of ministers as well.
Following
the final victory and withdrawal of occupant forces, the Ottoman Sultanate was
abolished by an ordinance of TBMM (1st November 1922). Treaty of
Lausanne, which enabled New Turkey to be recognized internationally was signed
on 24th July 1923. After a while, on 29th October 1923, TBMM
revised article 1, 10 and 11 of the constitution. According to the amendment:
- Turkey would become a republic.
- A new position called “Presidency of the Republic” was
to be created. Thereby, heads of legislative and executive were going to be
separated.
- Prime minister and other ministers were to be
nominated by the President of the Republic among the members of TBMM.
Subsequently, TBMM was going to approve their nomination.
Constitution
of 1921 was short, flexible and transitory. However, the process of state
formation required a more detailed, rigid and permanent text. In order to meet
the need, TBMM adopted a new constitution on 20th April 1924.
Constitution
of 1924 preserved the principle of national sovereignty and strictly prohibited
the amendment of its first article, specifying that Turkey is a republic. It
clearly repealed Kanun-u Esasî and
introduced the principle of supremacy of the constitution. Nevertheless, it did
not establish a constitutional court to guard that principle. As to liberties,
the text recognized only civil and political rights. Democracy was conceived in a representative
and majoritarian manner.
Despite
maintenance of the idea that legislative power (TBMM) should dominate executive
and judiciary, the Constitution of 1924 made the governmental system closer to
parliamentarism and headed to judicial independence. According to the text,
prime minister and all other ministers had to be deputies. President of the Republic
was to be elected by TBMM. President of the Republic had no right to dissolve
the parliament. On the other hand, prime minister would be appointed by the
President of the Republic while the other ministers were to be appointed by
prime minister. The cabinet of prime minister would be responsible to the
parliament collectively. With respect to judiciary, Constitution of 1924
declared that courts would decide on behalf of the nation and judges were to be
independent from any intervention. Nevertheless, the text excluded the
guarantee of a natural judge. Pursuant to French example, a Council of State
was established under the executive and administrative justice was separated
from judiciary. As a reflection of the régime
d’assemblée, judges were not permitted to interpret the legislation. In
case of ambiguity, TBMM was going to enact an expository statute (tefsir kararı).
Since the
Tanzimat, all subjects of the Sultan
were equal before the law as Ottomans,
regardless of race or religion. Constitution of 1924 maintained the principle
of equality while renaming the nation. Article 88 was as follows: “The name Turk, as a political term, shall
be understood to include all citizens of the Turkish Republic, without
distinction of, or reference to, race or religion”[20].
Constitution
of 1924 remained in force during 36 years. Through this period, the text was amended
several times. The article 2 specifying that Turkey is an Islamic state was removed
in 1928. Thanks to the changes of 1931 and 1934, women acquired the right to
vote and stand for election. In 1937, basic principles of Kemalism including laïcité (secularism) were
inserted into the text.
Mustafa
Kemal, to whom TBMM granted the surname Atatürk
(Father of Turks), managed to transform Turkish law in a strong and conclusive
way. Under the Constitution of 1924, Islamic law was exactly abrogated and
secular codes of European countries were adopted such as Civil Code from
Switzerland, Penal Code from Italy, and Commercial Code from Germany.
Administrative justice was re-organized by taking France as an example[21].
As stated
above, Constitution of 1924 predicted a representative and majoritarian
democracy, which was not appropriate for a multi-party system introduced in
1946. Hence, benefiting from the gaps of the constitution, Democratic Party
government became extremely authoritarian in late 50’s. On the pretext of taking the country to a more
effective democracy, a junta composed of young Turkish military officers staged
a coup d’état on 27th May
1960. Shortly afterwards, on 9th July 1961, a new constitution
prepared by the Constituent Assembly entered in force through a referendum in
which 63% of
the voters were in favor[22].
Constitution of 1961
Being
drafted by a constituent assembly and approved by popular vote, Constitution of
1961 was a first in the legal history of Turkey. It was a quite long and
detailed text (157 articles and 11 transitory articles), which reflects the
cautious attitude of its makers and the lessons taken from the past. The text
introduced new concepts such as social
state (welfare state), economic and
social rights (rights of status positivus), and rule of law (état de droit) and
defined the Republic with precision: “The
Turkish Republic is a national, democratic, secular and social state under the
rule of law, based on human rights and the fundamental principles set forth in
the Preamble” (Article 2)[23].
As
mentioned above, under constitutions of 1921 and 1924, national sovereignty was
conceived as the domination of TBMM over executive and judiciary. Article 4 of
the new constitution transformed this conception[24]
specifying that: “the nation shall
exercise its sovereignty through the authorized agencies as prescribed by the
principles laid forth in the Constitution[25]”. Thereby,
not only legislature (TBMM), but also executive (Cabinet and President of the
Republic) and judiciary (independent courts) would be perceived as the authentic,
direct and legitimate manifestations of national will.
Constitution
of 1961 established a parliamentary system, in which TBMM was redesigned as a
bicameral legislature: National Assembly (Millet
Meclisi) and Senate of the Republic (Cumhuriyet
Senatosu). All deputies of National Assembly and the majority of the Senate
were to be elected by general ballot. Fifteen senators were to be appointed by
the President of the Republic. Former presidents and Committee of National
Unity[26]
members were ex officio senators. President
of the Republic, who was head of the state having only symbolic functions and
politically impartial, would be elected by TBMM. Prime minister was to be
appointed by the President of the Republic. Ministers, who did not have to be
members of the parliament, were to be nominated by the prime minister. The
Cabinet (prime minister and ministers) would be responsible both individually
and collectively to the parliament (TBMM)[27].
Judiciary
gained a great significance thanks to the Constitution of 1961. For the first
time, a constitutional court was established to exercise the judicial review of
legislative acts. By this way, the supremacy of the constitution was
guaranteed. In order to enforce the independence of judiciary, Supreme Council
of Judges was founded. Moreover, security of tenure of judges was explicitly
recognized. Article 112 and 114 precisely declared principles of legality and
liability of administration and predicted that all acts and procedures of
administration were subject to judicial review. Supreme Election Board composed
of independent high-ranked judges was established to provide the safety of
elections[28].
Makers of
the constitution projected a pluralist democracy. In this regard, some of the
administrative bodies having possibility to influence the public opinion such
as TRT (Turkish Radio and Television) and universities were given functional
autonomy[29].
Nevertheless, because of the non-stop political and economic crisis fed by the
Cold War, the Constitution of 1961 was not be able to bring neither pluralist
democracy nor stability. Once again, Turkish Armed Forces intervened and took
the power in 12th September 1980[30].
Constitution of 1982
Under the
Constitution of 1961, it was quite difficult to restrict fundamental rights and
freedoms. Besides, complexity of parliamentary procedure created instability
and caused the state mechanism to slow down. Generals who staged the coup of
1980 considered that there must be a less libertarian constitution enabling
more powerful governments to emerge. That was –to put it simply- the rationale
behind the Constitution of 1982, which is technically current constitution of
Turkey[31].
Unlike
the previous one, the military played a far greater role in the preparation of
the new constitution[32]. Members
of the constituent assembly were directly appointed by National Security
Council (Millî Güvenlik Konseyi – official
name of the coup plotters). On 7th November 1982, the text was
approved through a referendum by %91.37 of the voters and entered in force. By
the same referendum, Kenan Evren, the chairman of the National Security
Council, was elected as the President of the Republic. The transitional period that
was envisaged by the new constitution terminated in 1987 and Turkey returned to
a normal democracy.
Having
177 articles (3 of them are non-amendable), Constitution of 1982 is a more
detailed and rigid text compared to its antecedents. It has simplified
parliamentary procedures through introducing a unicameral legislature and
reducing some of the quorum requirements. Makers of the Constitution of 1982
has projected a less participatory democracy and a depoliticized society, while
preserving the main principles and basic schema of the 1961 such as social
state, rule of law, equality, secularism, supremacy of constitution, separation
of jurisdictions, independence of judges, legality and liability of
administration[33].
Constitution
of 1982 is still in force, despite of the fact that it has been amended nearly
twenty times. These amendments have concerned almost 3/4 of the articles. With
respect to fundamental rights, especially through the amendments of 2001, guarantees
of the Constitution of 1961 have been reacquired on paper. Nevertheless, as to
the system of government, an opposite route has been taken. At first, the
Constitution of 1982 predicted a parliamentary regime with a strong president,
who was to be elected by TBMM[34].
By the referendum held in 2007, it was approved that the President of the
Republic would be elected directly by popular vote. This amendment transformed
the system into a de facto semi-presidentialism.
At the end, through the referendum of 2017, Turkey has headed to a hyper-presidentialism which lets the
President of the Republic dominate both the legislative and the judiciary[35].
Conclusion
In spite
of temporary interruptions, last two centuries of Turkey represents a gradual
and continuous progression from pre-modernity to modernity in terms of both legal
institutions and the perception of justice. Through introducing revolutionary
concepts and meeting the needs of realpolitik,
constitutions of 1876, 1921, 1924, 1961 and 1982 played a pioneering role in
that transformation. In order not to be misled by the comments confined to only
recent developments, a foreign reader must take into account the historical
evolution as a whole and should have in mind that Turkish people has a long
experience of freedom and democracy.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
- AKGÜN Seçil, “The Emergence of Tanzimat in the Ottoman Empire”,
Ankara Üniversitesi Osmanlı Tarihi
Araştırma ve Uygulama Merkezi Dergisi, Sayı: 2, 1991.
- AYBAY
Rona, “Some Contemporary Constitutional Problems in Turkey”, Bulletin (British Society for Middle
Eastern Studies), Volume: 4, Number: 1 (1977).
- BALKAN
Sadık / UYSAL Ahmet E. / KARPAT Kemal H., Constitution
of the Turkish Republic, Ankara 1961, p. 4.
(Link: http://www.anayasa.gen.tr/1961constitution-text.pdf).
- BENTWICH Norman, “The New Turkish Constitution”, Journal of the Society of Comparative Legislation, Volume: 9, Nunber: 2 (1908).
- BOZKURT Gülnihal, “Review of the Ottoman Legal System”,
Ankara Üniversitesi Osmanlı Tarihi
Araştırma ve Uygulama Merkezi Dergisi, Sayı: 3, 1992.
- EARLE
Edward Mead, “The New Constitution of Turkey”, Political Science Quarterly, Volume: 40, Issue: 1 (March 1925).
- GÖZLER Kemal,Türk
Anayasa Hukuku, Ekin Kitabevi Yayınları, Bursa 2000.
- GÖZLER
Kemal, Elveda Anayasa, Ekin, Bursa
2017.
- HEPER
Metin / ÇINAR Menderes, “Parliamentary Government with a Strong President: The
Post-1989 Turkish Experience”, Political
Science Quarterly, Volume: 111, Number: 3 (Autumn 1996).
- İNALCIK Halil, “The Policy of Mehmed II Toward the Greek Population of
Istanbul and the Byzantine Buildings of the City”, in The Ottoman Empire: Conquest, Organization and Economy, Variorum
Reprints, London 1978, (Volume: I).
- İNALCIK Halil, “The
Nature of Traditional
Society”, in The Ottoman Empire:
Conquest, Organization and Economy, Variorum Reprints, London 1978,
(Volume: II).
- İPŞİRLİ
Mehmet, “Âsafnâme”, Türkiye Diyanet
Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, Yıl: 1991, Cilt: 3.
- İREM Nazım, “Klasik
Osmanlı Adalet Rejimi ve 1839 Gülhane Kırılması”, Muhafazakâr Düşünce, Sayı: 15 (Kış 2008).
- LE PILLOUER Arnaud,
“La notion
de régime d’assemblée et les origines de la classification des régimes
politiques”, Revue française de droit constitutionnel, 2004/2, Numéro:
58.
- KAHRAMAN
Ahmet, “Ahlâk-ı Alâî”, Türkiye Diyanet
Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, Yıl: 1989, Cilt: 2.
- ORTAYLI İlber, Türkiye Teşkilât ve İdare Tarihi, Cedit
Neşriyat, Ankara 2008.
- ÖRÜCÜ Esin, “Conseil
d’Etat: The French Layer of Turkish Administrative Law”, The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Volume: 49, Number: 3 (July 2000).
- SHAW Stanford Jay /
SHAW Ezel Kural, History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey, Volume: II (Reform, Revolution and Republic: The Rise
of Modern Turkey, 1808-1975), Cambridge University Press, 1977.
- WATSON
Alan,“Legal Change: Sources of
Law and Legal Culture”, University
of Pennsylvania Law Review,
Volume: 131, Nunber: 5 (April 1983).
- ZÜRCHER Erik Jan, Turkey:
A Modern History, 3rd Edition, I.B. Tauris, London 2004.
[1] “What is history? An echo of the past in the
future. A reflex from the future on the past.”
[2] “Legal history seemed to offer better prospects for an understanding of
legal change.” WATSON Alan, “Legal Change: Sources of Law
and Legal Culture”, University of
Pennsylvania Law Review,
Volume: 131, Nunber: 5 (April 1983), p. 1122.
[3] ORTAYLI İlber, Türkiye Teşkilât
ve İdare Tarihi, Cedit Neşriyat, Ankara 2008, p. 100.
[4] İNALCIK Halil, “The
Policy of Mehmed II Toward the Greek Population of Istanbul and the Byzantine
Buildings of the City”, in The Ottoman
Empire: Conquest, Organization and Economy, Variorum Reprints, London 1978,
Volume: I, p. 233.
[5] ORTAYLI, p. 209-222.
[6] BOZKURT Gülnihal, “Review of the Ottoman Legal System”, Ankara Üniversitesi Osmanlı Tarihi
Araştırma ve Uygulama Merkezi Dergisi, Sayı: 3, 1992, p. 115-117.
[7] Âsafnâme is a booklet on Ottoman state organization
written by Lütfi Pascha (late 16th
century), who was the grand vizier (sadrazam) of Suleiman the Magnificent.
(İPŞİRLİ Mehmet, “Âsafnâme”, Türkiye
Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, Yıl: 1991, Cilt: 3,
p. 456).
[8] Ahlâk-ı
Alâî (Sublime Ethics) is the first moral and political treatise in Turkish
language, whose author was Kınalızâde Ali, one of the grand qadis in 16th century.
(KAHRAMAN Ahmet, “Ahlâk-ı Alâî”, Türkiye
Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, Yıl: 1989, Cilt: 2, p. 15).
[9] İREM Nazım, “Klasik Osmanlı Adalet Rejimi ve 1839 Gülhane Kırılması”, Muhafazakâr Düşünce, Sayı: 15 (Kış
2008), s. 149-174.
[10] İNALCIK Halil, “The Nature of Traditional Society”, in The
Ottoman Empire: Conquest, Organization and Economy, Variorum Reprints,
London 1978, Volume: II, p. 44.
[11] ZÜRCHER Erik Jan, Turkey: A Modern History, 3rd
Edition, I.B. Tauris, London 2004, p. 21-22.
[12] AKGÜN Seçil, “The
Emergence of Tanzimat in the Ottoman Empire”, Ankara Üniversitesi Osmanlı Tarihi
Araştırma ve Uygulama Merkezi Dergisi, Sayı: 2, 1991, p. 9.
[13] SHAW Stanford Jay / SHAW Ezel Kural, History of the Ottoman
Empire and Modern Turkey, Volume: II (Reform, Revolution and Republic: The Rise of Modern Turkey,
1808-1975), Cambridge University Press, 1977, p. 1-55.
[14] ZÜRCHER, p. 50-51; SHAW / SHAW, p. 59-61.
[15] ZÜRCHER, p. 61-63; SHAW / SHAW, p. 118-119.
[16] SHAW Stanford Jay / SHAW Ezel Kural, History of the Ottoman
Empire and Modern Turkey, Volume: II (Reform, Revolution and Republic: The Rise of Modern Turkey,
1808-1975), Cambridge University Press, 1977,
p. 174-187.
[17] BENTWICH Norman,
“The New Turkish Constitution”, Journal of the Society of
Comparative Legislation, Volume: 9, Nunber: 2 (1908), p. 328-336.
[18] SHAW, p. 272-340.
[19] LE PILLOUER Arnaud, “La notion de régime d’assemblée et les
origines de la classification des régimes politiques”, Revue française de
droit constitutionnel, 2004/2, Numéro: 58, p. 305-333.
[20] Translated by
EARLE Edward Mead, “The New Constitution of Turkey”, Political Science Quarterly, Volume: 40, Issue: 1 (March 1925), p.
98.
[21] See ÖRÜCÜ Esin, “Conseil d’Etat: The French Layer of Turkish
Administrative Law”, The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Volume: 49, Number: 3 (July 2000),
p. 679-700.
[22] AYBAY Rona, “Some Contemporary
Constitutional Problems in Turkey”, Bulletin
(British Society for Middle Eastern Studies), Volume: 4, Number: 1 (1977),
p. 21.
[23]
AYBAY, p. 22.
[24] AYBAY, p. 23-24.
[25] Translated by BALKAN Sadık / UYSAL
Ahmet E. / KARPAT Kemal H., Constitution
of the Turkish Republic, Ankara 1961, p. 4. (Link: http://www.anayasa.gen.tr/1961constitution-text.pdf).
[26] Millî Birlik Komitesi – Official name of the junta of
1960.
[27] GÖZLER Kemal,Türk Anayasa Hukuku, Ekin
Kitabevi Yayınları, Bursa 2000, p. 77-92.
[28] AYBAY, p. 23-24.
[29] AYBAY, p. 23-24.
[30] HEPER Metin / ÇINAR Menderes,
“Parliamentary Government with a Strong President: The Post-1989 Turkish
Experience”, Political Science Quarterly,
Volume: 111, Number: 3 (Autumn 1996), p. 489.
[31] HEPER / ÇINAR, p. 489.
[32] HEPER / ÇINAR, p. 489.
[33] GÖZLER Kemal,Türk Anayasa Hukuku, Ekin
Kitabevi Yayınları, Bursa 2000, p. 93-103.
[34] HEPER / ÇINAR, p. 501.
[35] For a detailed evaluation of the
last constitutional amendments, see GÖZLER Kemal, Elveda Anayasa, Ekin, Bursa 2017.