This is even against the Constitution…

The constitution of the Republic of Turkey, allows the president to be a party member. But this is not an unlimited and unregulated consent. The oath of impartiality, burdens a legal and moral impediment to the president of being a party chairman and acting bias.

The April.17,2017 changes paved the way for the president to become a member of a political party. However, for about half a century since 1961,, presidents could not become party members. If they were, the party would have to end their membership and thereby, they were remaining outside of daily politics and discussions between parties.

The regulation adopted by the 1961 Constitution, was a result of the pursuit of a president to represent not a part, but the whole of the nation. Being the head of a nation, required being the head of the whole, not a part of it.

For Turkey, it wasn’t an easy path to achive such a regulation.

Since Turkey had a single-party rule of Republican People’s Party (CHP) from 1923 to 1946, the whether the president should be the head of this political party was not a matter of a debate.

During the Free Party (SCF) experience in 1930, Fethi Okyar, the leader of the SCF asked Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the founder and the president of the Republic of Turkey, to be unbiased. Although there was such an image at the beginning,  it turned out that as a party leader, a president cannot stay neutral and this two-party period attempt had come to an end.

When the country moved to a multi-party system in 1946, the neutrality of the president climbed back on the agenda. İsmet İnönü, as both the president and the chairman of CHP of the time, renounced his “national chief” and “unchangeable chairman” titles which he had carried since 1938. He left his political party’s duties to his deputy chairman.

Despite of not leaving the chairmanship of CHP in those first years of pluralist democracy, İsmet İnönü tried to be as egalitarian and impartial as possible between the parties in order to prevent the system from getting into trouble.

Opponents of the multi-party regime within the CHP were not satisfied with İnönü’s attitude, and this discontent occasionally caused important discussions.

The strings broke when Prime Minister Recep Peker, one of the prominent hardliners, accused the Democratic Party (DP) of working with revolutionary methods.

President İnönü took a clear stand against Peker. “It is necessary to ensure that an opposition party that works in accordance with the law, works within the conditions of the ruling party. On this ground, I, as the head of the state, see myself at an equal duty to both parties,” he said.

The dispute resulted in the resignation of Prime Minister Peker, who was in favour of closing the DP.

İnönü’s attitude had made a big contribution to the survival of the multi-party regime and ended a quarter-century of single-party rule in 1950 with an election.

When DP came to power on May 14, 1950, Celal Bayar, the chairman of DP took İsmet İnönü’s attitude one step further. DP argued that the president should not be a party leader.

The day he was elected as the president, Celal Bayar fulfilled the view of his party and resigned from the chairmanship of DP. Adnan Menderes replaced Bayar as the chairman.

However, the personal attitude of İnönü and Bayar to appear outside of the daily politics as the president was not enough to keep the head of the state above political bias.

Bayar, in particular, failed to maintain its supra-party position after 1958. If he could manage to stay neutral as he promised, he might prevent the country from being dragged into a crisis and the multi-party system would not have suffered an incurable injury at the beginning.

The 1961 Constitution made ‘president’s neutrality’ an obligation. The 1982 Constitution also preserved the same understanding of impartiality.

Presidents elected (or deemed to be elected like Kenan Evren, the general who headed the 1980 military coup in Turkey and served as a military president for several years afterwards) during these periods did not cause any problems for the country by their attitudes and behaviours.

Among them, the late Turgut Özal and the late Süleyman Demirel left the chairmanship of their parties that they hailed from and their names were not mentioned with their parties during their presidencies.

In this respect, the position of the president has gone back more than 70 years with the 2017 constitutional changes.

In 1950, the late Bayar left the chairmanship and chose to remain a simple party member; while the late İnönü left the daily politics to the deputy chairman, he protected the law of the opposition party as a president.

Following his election as the president in 2014, Mr. Erdoğan did not only become a member of his party immediately after the changes in 2017, taking advantage of the opportunities provided by the constitution, he also convened the congress as quick as he could and became the chairman.

Since then, he has been trying to pursue two tasks together with a “partisan” attitude beyond just being a party member.

This position and attitude of Mr. Erdoğan’s is a de facto situation that is contrary to today’s constitution and a constitutional violation, despite the changes in 2017.

Today, the constitution allows the president to become a member of a political party. However, this consent is not wide and unregulated enough to allow him to take a partisan attitude.

In Article 103 of the Constitution, there stands the oath he took on his honour as “… that he will protect the integrity of the country and the nation… he will work with all his might to fulfill his duty with impartiality.” Perhaps taking into account the greatness of his office, it can be argued that a president who is a party member will pay attention to impartiality.

For example, the heads of the Turkish national assembly (TBMM), cannot participate in political discussions, do not vote, and stay away from duties that would disrupt their neutrality, in spite of being party members.

With a forced interpretation, it can be assumed that a president who is a party member can act “impartially” like the president of the assembly.

But the neutrality of a president cannot be mentioned while being the chairman of a party, especially for a president who participates in all kinds of activities of his party and who makes accusations beyond raising answers to opposition parties and circles on every issue.

The head of state staying in a position above political parties and political debate that everyone respects is a guarantee for the integrity of the country and the unity of the nation. But if the president adopts a biased, partisan attitude, the country would be deprived of this very important guarantee.

The problems raised as a result of depriving the country of such a guarantee for any reason are obvious in recent years. Constitutional institutions and rules are established not according to the demands and wishes of the people, but by taking lessons from history and considering the future as much as possible.

It is in everyone’s best interest to abandon such personal and reactional arrangements, especially those that go beyond the regulations. For this reason, Mr. Erdoğan’s choosing one of these two important duties and positions incompatible with each other is both the urgent need of the country and the requirement of the constitution.

It should not be forgotten that the benefit of the country and the nation is above the personal, peripheral and political benefits and interests of all of us. Watching out for the interests of the country is primarily the duty and responsibility of the president.