CHP struggles with ‘citizenship’ crisis

CHP struggles with ‘citizenship’ crisis

ANKARA - Hürriyet Daily News

Kılıçdaroğlu promised CHP MPs Kart and Türmen that he will carry the debates over the constitutional definition of citizenship issue to yesterday’s MYK meeting.

As the deputies of the main Republican People’s Party (CHP) at Parliament’s Constitution Reconciliation Commission have not been able to narrow their disagreements over the constitutional definition of citizenship, the issue was taken to the meeting of the party’s Central Executive Board (MYK) yesterday.
 The CHP’s internal disagreements meant that yesterday’s meeting of the commission was cancelled.
The CHP’s proposal on the article related to citizenship has not been drafted for two months, as Sühely Batum insisted on the inclusion of the notion of “Turkishness” in the party’s proposal. Atilla Kart and Rıza Türmen objected to this stance. Batum, Kart and Türmen are all representing the party at Parliament’s Constitution Reconciliation Commission.

In late September, during a two-day working camp of the CHP, Batum conducted a survey among CHP deputies. The results showed that almost 90 percent of the deputies wanted to see the notion of “Turkishness,” in the new constitution. Despite this, Kart and Türmen objected to having “Turkishness” included in the definition and discussed the issue with CHP leader Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu on Tuesday. They also offered their own proposal, composed of three options.

During Tuesday’s meeting, Kılıçdaroğlu promised Kart and Türmen that he would carry the issue to yesterday’s MYK meeting. The proposal to be discussed at the MYK meeting was composed of three alternatives: “1. Citizenship is gained by fulfilling the requirements designated by the law and it is lost only in situations that are designated by the law. 2. Everybody bound by the state by the bind of citizenship is citizen of the Republic of Turkey. 3. Everybody bound by the Republic of Turkey by the bind of citizenship is a Turkish citizen. ‘Turkishness’ expresses a legal bind, but not ethnicity.”