Erdoğan speaks to crowds at Erzurum Cemal Gursel Stadium. Αλέξης Τσίπρας Πρωθυπουργός/Flickr. Some rights reserved.The constitutional
reform in Turkey of 2016 and the conditions under which it is being
pushed through recall legal procedures like the Enabling Act
1933 by which the Nazis came to power in Germany in the 1930s. This
has been noted by many international and in particular German, Austrian and
Swiss media including ‘Die Tagesschau’, ‘Der Standard’
and ‘Neue Zuricher
Zeitung’.
In
contrast, what remains of the Turkish media (Daily Sabah 2016)
tend to argue that the new system resembles the French or US presidential
system, an argument often repeated by international media (e.g. The Guardian
2017). Other commentators criticise any comparison of processes in
1933 Germany and 2016 Turkey (e.g. Ayata 2016).
However, Neil Gregor (History Today
2017) suggests that such comparative studies can shed light on two
contrasting periods. Further to this, I would argue that the analytical
categories and lessons learned from the rise of the Nazis, the Holocaust and
the Second World War remain crucial for critically examining policy
processes with the view to preventing the repetition of any such horrors (also
see Jeffrey C. Isaac 2016).
Hence the following inventory:
– Turkey’s constitutional reform is
prepared following an attempted military coup and the bombing of the parliament
sometimes referred to as Turkey's Reichstagsbrand. President Erdogan declared a
state of emergency and since 21 July 2016 Turkey is largely governing through
emergency decrees. The Nazi Enabling Act was passed following an arson attack
on the parliament, ‘Reichstagsbrand’. President Hindenburg on the advice
of Hitler issued the ‘Reichstagsbrand
decree’ and thus a state of emergency.
– In Turkey, the post-coup emergency
decrees were used to restrict civil rights, remove all opposition from their
posts and ban critical media. In Germany, the ‘Reichstagsbrand decree’ lead to
the restriction of civil rights, shutting down of all opposition media and this
was used as the legal basis for the imprisonment of anyone considered to be
opponents of the Nazis.
– Crucially important in Nazi Germany
was the coordination or alignment (‘Gleichschaltung’) and thus
‘Nazification’
of all state authorities through removing all non-Nazis like teachers,
professors, judges or civil servants from public posts and intimidating the
rest. In Turkey, the ongoing purge is doing exactly the same by sacking over
128,000 civil servants across many sectors and silencing any possible
opposition (see TurkeyPurge).
– In Turkey, constitutional reforms
require a two-thirds majority. The AK party ensures the outcome by intimidating
the parliamentarian opposition; the leaders and MPs of the opposition HDP were
arrested. In Nazi Germany, the Enabling Act depended upon a two-thirds majority
vote in parliament, Hitler and the Nazi Party ensured the outcome by
intimidation and persecution. The Communist party with its 81 MPs was banned
and also 26 Social democratic MPs imprisoned to achieve this end.
– In Turkey, the ruling AK party does
not hold a parliamentarian majority and requires the collaboration of the
nationalist MHP. However, the AK party and its ally still only muster a
three-fifths majority; but due to a specificity in the Turkish constitution
they can call for a referendum which is what is now happening. In Nazi Germany,
the NSDAP needed the conservative Centre Party to fabricate a parliamentarian
majority and in exchange offered certain concessions regarding the rights of
Catholics.
– In Turkey, the reform will abolish the
role of the prime minister, in Nazi Germany the role of the president
(Hindenburg) was de facto abolished after Hindenburg died in 1934.
– In Turkey, Erdogan’s bid for power
drives the process; many followers and some commentators refer to him as
‘Reis’, leader (or ‘Führer’ in German). In Germany, Hitler’s leadership was
less formal and based on the so-called leader principle (‘Führerprinzip’).
‘Hitler was determined to command personally‘(Megargee on BBC
2014) and so is Erdogan it seems (Türköne 2014).
– In Turkey, the president and no longer
the parliament will determine the structure of the government and all relevant
authorities and appoint top state officials, ministers and thus the government
(Ozturk &
Gozaydin 2016). In Nazi Germany, the chancellor (Hitler) determined
the structure of the authorities, appointed top state officials and ministers
and thus the government.
– In Turkey, the parliament retains
powers to issue, amend or annul laws. However, this power is undermined as the
president can ‘veto’ any parliamentarian legislation of which he disapproves (Ozturk &
Gozaydin 2016); the president (Erdogan) will also have the authority
to annul parliament and call for elections. In Nazi Germany, the Enabling Act
gave the cabinet and de facto Hitler the sole power to issue laws; the parliament
continued to exist though all opposition parties were banned so that it became
a mere ‘rubber stamp’ (US Holocaust
Memorial Museum).
– In Turkey, six of 13 members of the
Supreme Board of Judges and Prosecutors’ (four judges, the minister and
under-secretary of justice) will be named by the president; the others will be
elected by simple majority parliament and selected by the AKP. A new supreme
board will be established within 30 days of the change of constitution. Also 13
of 15 judges of the Constitutional Court will be appointed by the president,
Erdogan. This will severely cripple independence and powers of both courts. In
Nazi Germany, the People’s Court (Volksgerichthof) was instituted by Hitler and
due to the coordination policy only had Nazis as members.
– In Turkey, the president will be able
to govern through presidential decrees (right now only the cabinet can issue
decrees); the president can also rule through emergency decrees. The new
constitution prescribes that emergency decrees must be approved by parliament
within 30 days; however, if parliament does not approve or cannot reach a
decision decrees still remain in power. Also presidential decrees can be abrogated
by parliament but because Erdogan also controls parliament this rule is
neutralised. President Erdogan de facto gains sole power to govern through
decrees. In Nazi Germany, Hitler ruled through decrees which after the enabling
act needed no more parliamentarian approval.
– In Turkey, the president (Erdogan)
would simultaneously become formal chairman of the ruling party, has the power
to determine AKP MPs and as such directly control the parliament (legislative)
whilst also being head of government and state (executive). In Nazi Germany,
Hitler was simultaneously head of the ruling party, government and state.
The
processes of these reforms in Turkey and Nazi Germany and the conditions under
which they take place are very similar. Meanwhile, the reforms as such differ
in some important ways; whether this is a fundamental difference remains to be
seen, notably as it is not yet clear how the process will continue.
Both
president Erdogan and chancellor Hitler respectively were eager to give their
politics the appearance of legality, though this was achieved by manipulation
of the procedures and oppression of the opposition and media. The Enabling Act
concentrated all executive powers within the cabinet and Reich Chancellor
Hitler; the Turkish constitutional reform too will concentrate all executive
power with the president. But from this point of analysis the two cases differ
and comparison becomes more complex.
The Nazi
Enabling Act removed all legislative powers from the parliament. In contrast,
in the Turkish proposal the parliament continues to hold legislative powers.
However, the president can rule through decrees, refuse approval of
parliamentarian legislation and thus in effect side-line parliament. Also
because the new constitution allows the president to be a member and a leader
of a political party this means that Erdogan will almost certainly become AK
party leader again and through parliament also has the powers to determine
legislation.
The
Turkish presidential system because it is based on only one chamber would be
rather dissimilar from the US and French systems which both
rest on two legislative chambers, one restricting the powers of the other.
Further to this, the French system foresees a stronger role for the parliament,
it has the power to question the president, a power not foreseen in Turkey’s
system, a strong independent judiciary also no longer foreseen in Turkey and is
therefore considered only semi-presidential. Justifying the Turkish
constitutional reform on the basis of comparison with the French or US
presidential system is not convincing.
Finally,
the comparison of the constitutional transformations of Turkey and Nazi Germany
does not per se suggest that Turkey is on the path of a totalitarian regime
like the Nazi regime as Arendt defines it. The Turkish constitutional reform is
thus not the same as the Nazi Enabling Act; however, the Turkish reform seems
to enable Erdogan to become sole and unrestrained leader just like the Enabling
Act enabled Hitler. Many commentators characterise the new Turkey as
authoritarian (The Atlantic,
The Observer,
Foreign Affairs).
It is frightening to observe how through democratic processes authoritarian
rule is imposed on a previously fairly democratic country.
Any
appeasement approach on the part of the EU similar to the allies response in
the 1930s vis a vis the rise of the Nazis in Germany would seem to be utterly
inappropriate.