Turkey's Erdogan rewriting constitution to stay in power? Here's what we know
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan recently appointed a team of legal experts to draft a new constitution for Turkey. Advocating for a new constitution, the Turkish president stated that the current document stands "outdated" and has "elements of military influence" from the 1980 coup.
'As of yesterday, I have assigned 10 legal experts to begin their work, and with this effort, we will proceed with the preparations for the new constitution,' Erdogan told his ruling party's administrators on Tuesday.
'For 23 years, we have repeatedly demonstrated our sincere intention to crown our democracy with a new civilian and libertarian constitution," the Turkish president added further.
Turkey's current constitution was drafted in 1980, following a military coup. It was ratified in 1982 and replaced the version which was enforced in 1961.
Over the years, the 1982 version of the constitution has been amended 21 times with key changes to reflect the changing geopolitical contexts. For instance, one of the key changes introduced was after the 2017 constitutional referendum which ended the parliamentary system in Turkey and adopted a presidential one.
In the 2017 referendum, the number of parliament seats were also increased and the president's power were expanded to have more control over the appointment of judges in the Supreme court was also increased
As per the current constitution, a Turkish president can stay in office for a five-year term and for two consecutive terms.
Erdogan has been the leader of Turkey since 2003. While the Turkish leader is on his third term in office, he argues that this latest term is constitutionally valid due to the shift from parliamentary to presidential system.
Amid the backlash, Erdogan has also defended the drafting of a new constitution.
"We want the new constitution not for ourselves, but for our country. I have no interest in being re-elected or running for office again,' he told reporters on Thursday. Despite this statement, Erdogan's actions have stated otherwise.
Earlier this year, Ekrem Imamoglu, the mayor of Istanbul and Erdogan's key presidential competition was arrested on corruption. Imamoglu and the opposition have denied the charges of corruption, and his arrest has been largely viewed as politically motivated.
Erdogan's current term ends in 2028, but many have viewed Imamoglu's arrest as part of the Turkish's president grab for power.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
With Supreme Court ruling, another check on Trump's power fades
WASHINGTON : The Supreme Court ruling barring judges from swiftly blocking government actions, even when they may be illegal, is yet another way that checks on executive authority have eroded as President Donald Trump pushes to amass more power. The decision on Friday, by a vote of 6-3, could allow Trump's executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship to take effect in some parts of the country -- even though every court that has looked at the directive has ruled it unconstitutional. That means some infants born to immigrants without legal status or foreign visitors without green cards could be denied citizenship-affirming documentation like Social Security numbers. But the diminishing of judicial authority as a potential counterweight to exercises of presidential power carries implications far beyond the issue of citizenship. The Supreme Court is effectively tying the hands of lower-court judges at a time when they are trying to respond to a steady geyser of aggressive executive branch orders and policies. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Jesus' Tomb Is Opened And Scientists Find Something Unbelievable Novelodge Undo The ability of district courts to swiftly block Trump administration actions from being enforced in the first place has acted as a rare effective check on his second-term presidency. But generally, the pace of the judicial process is slow and has struggled to keep up. Actions that took place by the time a court rules them illegal, like shutting down an agency or sending migrants to a foreign prison without due process, can be difficult to unwind. Presidential power historically goes through ebbs and flows, with fundamental implications for the functioning of the system of checks and balances that defines American-style democracy. Live Events But it has generally been on an upward path since the middle of the 20th century. The growth of the administrative state inside the executive branch, and the large standing armies left in place as World War II segued into the Cold War, inaugurated what historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. coined the "imperial presidency." Presidential power waned in the 1970s, in the period encompassing the Watergate scandal and the end of the Vietnam War. Courts proved willing to rule against the presidency, as when the Supreme Court forced President Richard Nixon to turn over his Oval Office tapes. Members of both parties worked together to enact laws imposing new or restored limits on the exercise of executive power. But the present era is very different. Presidential power began to grow again in the Reagan era and after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. And now Trump, rejecting norms of self-restraint, has pushed to eliminate checks on his authority and stamp out pockets of independence within the government while only rarely encountering resistance from a Supreme Court he reshaped and a Congress controlled by a party in his thrall. The decision by the Supreme Court's conservative majority comes as other constraints on Trump's power have also eroded. The administration has steamrolled internal executive branch checks, including firing inspectors general and sidelining the Justice Department 's Office of Legal Counsel, which traditionally set guardrails for proposed policies and executive orders. And Congress, under the control of Trump's fellow Republicans, has done little to defend its constitutional role against his encroachments. This includes unilaterally dismantling agencies Congress had said shall exist as a matter of law, firing civil servants in defiance of statutory limits, and refusing to spend funds that lawmakers had authorized and appropriated. Last week, when Trump unilaterally bombed Iranian nuclear sites without getting prior authorization from Congress or making any claim of an imminent threat, one Republican, Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, stepped forward to call the move unconstitutional since Congress has the power to declare war. Trump reacted ferociously, declaring that he would back a primary challenger to end Massie's political career, a clear warning shot to any other Republican considering objecting to his actions. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, recently told her constituents that "we are all afraid" of Trump. While the immediate beneficiary of the Supreme Court's ruling is Trump, the decision also promises to free his successors from what has been a growing trend of district court intervention into presidential policymaking. In the citizenship case, the justices stripped district court judges of the authority to issue so-called universal injunctions, a tool that lower courts have used to block government actions they deem most likely illegal from taking effect nationwide as legal challenges to them play out. The frequency of such orders has sharply increased in recent years, bedeviling presidents of both parties. Going forward, the justices said, lower courts may only grant injunctive relief to the specific plaintiffs who have filed lawsuits. That means the Trump administration may start enforcing the president's birthright citizenship order in the 28 states that have not challenged it, unless individual parents have the wherewithal and gumption to bring their own lawsuits. The full scope of the ruling remains to be seen given that it will not take effect for 30 days. It is possible that plaintiffs and lower-court judges will expand the use of class-action lawsuits as a different path to orders with a nationwide effect. Such an option, Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote in the majority opinion, would be proper so long as they obey procedural limits for class-action cases. Still, in concurring opinions, two other key members of the conservative bloc, Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, warned lower-court judges not to lower standards for using alternative means to issue sweeping orders in an effort to circumvent the ruling. Alito wrote that "district courts should not view today's decision as an invitation to certify nationwide classes without scrupulous adherence to the rigors" of legal rules. Thomas added that if judges do not "carefully heed this court's guidance" and act within limits, "this court will continue to be 'duty bound' to intervene." In a rare move that signaled unusually intense opposition, Justice Sonia Sotomayor read aloud a summary of her dissenting opinion from the bench Friday. Calling the ruling a grave attack on the American system of law, she said it endangered constitutional rights for everyone who is not a party to lawsuits defending them. "Today, the threat is to birthright citizenship," she wrote. "Tomorrow, a different administration may try to seize firearms from law-abiding citizens or prevent people of certain faiths from gathering to worship. The majority holds that, absent cumbersome class-action litigation, courts cannot completely enjoin even such plainly unlawful policies unless doing so is necessary to afford the formal parties complete relief." Sotomayor also said the administration did not ask to entirely halt the multiple injunctions against its order because it knew the directive was patently illegal, and accused the majority of playing along with that open gamesmanship. She, like the other two justices who joined her dissent, is a Democratic appointee. All six of the justices who voted to end universal injunctions were Republican appointees, including three Trump installed on the bench in his first term. The same supermajority has ruled in ways that have enhanced his power in other avenues. Last year, the bloc granted Trump presumptive immunity from criminal prosecution for his official acts as president. The ruling, by Chief Justice John Roberts, asserted that presidents have absolute immunity for anything they do with the Justice Department and their supervision of federal law enforcement power. Emboldened, Trump this year has built on his approach from his first term, when he informally pressured prosecutors to investigate his political foes. He has issued formal orders to scrutinize specific people he does not like, shattering the post-Watergate norm of a Justice Department case independent from White House political control. The supermajority also has blessed Trump's gambit in firing Democratic members of independent agency commissions before their terms were up. The conservative justices have made clear that they are prepared to overturn a long-standing precedent allowing Congress to establish specialized agencies to be run by panels whose members cannot be arbitrarily fired by presidents. In a separate concurrence, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson offered a realpolitik take. The majority's exegesis of what powers Congress understood itself to be granting lower courts when it created them in 1789 was a smokescreen of mind-numbing "legalese," she wrote, obscuring the question of whether a court can order the executive branch to follow the law. "In a constitutional republic such as ours, a federal court has the power to order the executive to follow the law -- and it must," she wrote before striking a cautionary note. "Everyone, from the president on down, is bound by law," she added. "By duty and nature, federal courts say what the law is (if there is a genuine dispute), and require those who are subject to the law to conform their behavior to what the law requires. This is the essence of the rule of law." But Barrett accused her of forgetting that courts, too, must obey legal limits. "Justice Jackson decries an imperial executive while embracing an imperial judiciary," Barrett wrote. "No one disputes that the executive has a duty to follow the law. But the judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation -- in fact, sometimes the law prohibits the judiciary from doing so." This article originally appeared in The New York Times.
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
Gujarat HC issues contempt notice to Junagadh Municipal Corporation officers
Stating that the officers of the Junagadh Municipal Corporation had 'prima facie acted in defiance' of the directions of the Supreme Court as well as a subsequent policy of the state government in demolishing a 300-year-old Dargah, the Gujarat High Court on Friday issued a contempt notice to the then Municipal Commissioner Om Prakash and Senior Town Planner Vivek Kiran Parekh. The court was hearing an application moved by the Trustee of the Jok Alisha Dargah, a registered (Waqf) trust, under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, for 'non-compliance and disobedience' of a 2018 order of the apex court. A Division Bench of Justice A S Supehia and Justice R T Vachhani, in an oral order on Friday, issued the notice based on the 2018 order to remit cases of 'existing unauthorized construction of the religious nature' to the respective High Courts. The petition, filed in May this year, challenged the midnight demolition of the 300-year old dargah on April 17 by the Junagadh civic body, following multiple notices issued by the Senior Town Planner, contending that the civic body 'did not consider' the reliance on the SC order as well as the fact of a pending civil petition before the High Court in the matter. Stating that the dargah was registered as Jok Alisha Dargah Trust on April 8, 1964, the petition states, 'The Jok Alisha Dargah has been situated at Gandhi Chowk in Junagadh since before India's independence and is about 300 years old. The Muslim community and other devotees have regularly performed religious rites and observances at the Dargah. Further, annual Urs celebrations have also been held with prior permissions, including the use of loudspeakers.' The petition relied on the order by the Supreme Court, which ruled that the High Courts concerned must supervise the implementation of the interim orders of the apex court in matters of regularization of the existing religious structures on public places, which had been under deliberation before the Supreme Court since 2006. The Gujarat HC order on Friday stated, 'It appears that the Supreme Court, initially passed an order on September 29, 2009, directing that by an interim measure, no unauthorized construction shall be carried out or permitted in the name of Temple, Church, Mosque or Gurudwara etc., on public streets, public parks or other public places. Further directions were issued that the unauthorized construction of the religious nature, which had already taken place (prior to the order), the State Governments and the Union Territories shall review the same on a case-to-case basis and take appropriate steps as expeditiously as possible…' The 2018 order of the top court also stated that 'the interim orders wherever passed, shall continue, until the matters are considered by the High Court'. The Gujarat HC order also referred to a state government policy dated April 19, 2024 that stipulates the constitution of committees by the Municipal Commissioner and District Collectors, as well as the appointment of Nodal Officers. The policy empowers the committee to prescribe various steps, such as the removal, relocation, and regularisation of unauthorised constructions. The court order noted that the Senior Town Planner of the Junagadh civic body issued a notice on January 31 this year to the petitioner for removing the alleged unauthorised dargah and called upon the petitioner for submission of necessary documents pertaining to the ownership within three days. The petitioner replied and complied, by submitting documents on February 3, 2025, also 'pointing out the directions issued by the Supreme Court along with the relevant documents about the ownership and the local authorities… referencing also to the proceedings pending before this Court (in a 2006 Special Civil Application)…' The court further noted that the Senior Town Planner issued a 'last notice' on April 9, 2025, calling upon the applicant to remove the disputed structure within five days. While the petitioner replied on April 15 this year reiterating the request and pointing out that the dargah had been there for the last 300 years, on April 17, the respondents demolished it. The court order stated, 'Prima facie, at this stage, we are of the opinion that the respondents have acted in defiance of the directions of the Supreme Court and the Policy dated April 19, 2024. Since liberty is reserved in favour of the respective High Courts to proceed in Contempt if any of the directions issued by the Supreme Court are violated, we deem appropriate to call upon the respondents… Issue notice (to the two respondents), making it returnable on July 28.' Earlier in June, Prakash was transferred and appointed as the District Collector of Rajkot while Tejas Parmar took over as the Municipal Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation.
India Gazette
2 hours ago
- India Gazette
Congress corners BJP over delay in implementation of 27 per cent OBC reservation in Madhya Pradesh
New Delhi [India], June 28 (ANI): Congress on Saturday cornered the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government in Madhya Pradesh for its wilful delay in providing 27 per cent reservation to Other Backward Classes (OBCs) despite the passing of the concerned legislation and clearing of the same by the courts. The party demanded the immediate implementation of 27 per cent reservations for OBCs in Madhya Pradesh, as it has been categorically cleared by the Supreme Court. Addressing a press conference at the AICC headquarters here, senior party leaders, including former Chhattisgarh Chief Minister Bhupesh Baghel, Madhya Pradesh Congress in-charge Harish Chaudhary, MP PCC president Jitu Patwari and AICC OBC Department Chairman Anil JaiHind alleged that the BJP was revealing its anti-reservation and anti-backwards classes mindset by deliberately delaying the reservation benefits to the OBCs. Harish Chaudhary stated that it was the Congress government that originally provided 14 per cent reservation to the OBCs in 1994. Later, in 2003, again, it was the Congress government that raised the quota to 27 per cent. However, after the elections, the BJP government was formed, and it never implemented the decision. He stated that after 16 years, when the Congress government was formed in 2019 under the leadership of Kamal Nath, it introduced an ordinance providing 27 per cent reservation for OBCs. However, the BJP challenged it in court, which then directed that a law be enacted on the matter. 'We subsequently got the bill passed in the Assembly.' He added that as the BJP formed the government again, it did not implement the OBC reservation bill. Chaudhary stated that the High Court dismissed the pleas against the 27 per cent reservations, and the BJP government subsequently approached the Supreme Court. He noted that the Supreme Court also upheld it and issued a notice to the MP government on June 25, inquiring why the 27 per cent reservation benefit for OBCs was not being implemented. Bhupesh Baghel, while accusing the BJP of having an anti-reservation mindset, disclosed that the Congress government in Chhattisgarh had unanimously passed a law in December 2022 to provide 27 per cent reservation to OBCs. However, the bill is yet to get the nod of the Governor. He said this is because the BJP does not want to provide 27 per cent reservations to the OBCs. He seconded Chaudhary's stand that not only will the Congress fight the issue legally, but it will also raise it publicly to build pressure on the BJP government to implement it. Jitu Patwari said that it was strange that Prime Minister Modi claims himself to be an OBC, and yet he was not providing the OBC community its rightful due. He said the OBC Chief Ministers of MP belonging to the BJP, like Uma Bharti, Shivraj Singh Chouhan and Mohan Yadav, have all betrayed their community. Anil JaiHind maintained that the BJP and the RSS have always been against the reservation. Citing an example, he said the law on reservation for Dalits, OBCs and Adivasis in private educational institutions has been deliberately delayed by the BJP government since 2014. (ANI)
