Which one of the proposed constitutional amendments is right?

In response to concerns over proposed amendments to the Turkish constitution, Prime Minister Binali Yıldırım said, “We will not insist on the unfavorable ones.”

Well, I have to tell the prime minister with regret that this offer has no “useful” part at all, let alone eliminate the “unfavorable” parts and move ahead. 

The utmost vital damage the proposed amendments could bring is the minimization of the parliament’s power to zero, it destroys the independence of the judiciary and creates a one-man regime that cannot be held accountable. 

The president, according to the amendments, will be able to abolish the parliament with a decision he can reach alone, disabling the power the parliament has to remove him.

The president will be able to set the budget, even if the parliament rejects it, he will be able to move on with the old budget after required revisions. What about the right to control the budget? The most important factor of the will of the nation is becoming a toy in the hands of the new president, are you aware of this? 

The president can maintain his position as the head of a political party and is able to change the administrative system, appoint anybody anywhere. If this isn’t a “party state,” then what is? 

The president solely selects half of the members of the Supreme Council of Judges and Prosecutors (HSYK).

Then, if the majority of the parliament is the president’s party, then the other half is selected by the majority on behalf of the parliament. Where is the independence of the judiciary? 

There is no existing mechanism to monitor the acts of the president. He or she can do whatever they want, the parliament and the judiciary can only watch. 

The deputy president is not elected but is able to use the power of the executive just like the president elected by popular vote. Where is the national will? 

The prerequisite that is “to be born a Turkish citizen” to be the president, strips a portion of our citizens of the right of being elected. Can there be such a democracy? 

What part of this proposed amendment is correct that we could be able to review the “unfavorable” parts and keep the “useful” ones? 


Who misguided the intelligence on the day of the attempted coup? 

The parliamentary commission established to investigate the July 15 coup attempt prepared a preliminary report. 

According to this preliminary report, a major in the army, identified only as H.A., who tipped off the “attempt” by personally going to the National Intelligence Organization (MİT) complex, told them that three helicopters would attack the residence of the undersecretary of MİT and kidnap him. 

The MİT’s undersecretary held consultations at the headquarters of the Chief of General Staff with the chief himself, the second chief and the commander of the Turkish land forces for about four hours.  

After this, it was reported that the undersecretary of MİT left without feeling the need to inform the president, the prime minister and the interior minister. 

The Chief of General Staff, on the other hand, found it adequate to give orders of “No military planes to take off and all military troops to stay in their barracks.” 

After that, some of them went to a wedding, some of them were captured by the putschists in some headquarters. 

But what I’m wondering is that how did they not assess this was a coup attempt?  

I mean, a group of soldiers are flying three helicopters, attacking the house of the head of the intelligence and are kidnapping him but senior military officers are not suspecting an “attempted coup” from all this? 
Can this be possible? 

If this has been possible and this really occurred, then the next question emerges, “How much can you trust the assessments of this command level,” right? 

Well then, why are they all still on duty?