S e t a 1 y ı l l ı ğ ı

105

c o n s t i t u t i o n a l   a m e n d m e n t s

ABSTRACT

 The constitutional referendum of September 2010 

was a historic moment and a milestone in modern Turkey’s 

democratization journey. Serving as the public’s “final say” on 

the question of democracy in Turkey and paving the way for a 

new civilian constitution, the referendum will have far-reaching 

consequences for civil-military relations, independence of the 

judicial system, and institutionalization of democracy in Turkey. 

This study investigates the consequences of the referendum for 

the shaping of the political scene in Turkey by analyzing the po-

litical parties’ campaign strategies, voting patterns, voter prefer-

ences, and likely scenarios for the June 2011 general elections.

The report is divided into four main parts that tackle the main 

questions that the referendum of 2010 raised. First, what is the 

significance of the September 2010 constitutional referendum 

in Turkey? Second, what campaign strategies were most effec-

tive during the referendum? Third, what can be deduced from 

the voting patterns and voter preferences? Fourth, what can we 

predict about the June 2011 general Elections based on voter behaviors during the constitutional

SETA POLICY REPORT

Turkey’s Constitutional 

Referendum of 2010 

Önce zihinlerde yeşeren devrimler, iletişim teknolojilerinin sunduğu imkânlarla kısa 

bir sürede toplumsal bir ortak akıla dönüşmekte ve bir gecenin sabahında binlerce 

insan aynı meydanda buluşmaktadır.

HATEM ETE & KADIR ÜSTÜN & NUH YILMAZ 

constitutional amendments

ŞUBAT 2011 - 

The constitutional referendum of September 12, 2010 represented a signif-

icant moment in strengthening civilian rule, restricting the military and judicial bureaucracy’s 

overarching power, and liberalizing the political system. Prior to the referendum, opposition 

parties  campaigned  by  criticizing  AK  Party’s  past  8  years  record  in  power  in  an  attempt  to 

turn this process into a vote of confidence for the government, on the other hand, AK Party 

structured  its  campaign  around  the  democratization  versus  -tutelage  dichotomy  and  high-

lighted the content of the amendment package. A 58-percent support for the amendments 

demonstrated that AK Party’s campaign strategy appealed to voters beyond its own constitu-

ency. Moreover, the majority of voters did not view the referendum through partisan lenses. 

Instead, they regarded the amendments as a rehearsal for a brand new constitution that was 

already part of the government’s post-election agenda.

---

106

ş u b a t   1 1

referendum of 2010? The study of the Septem-

ber 2010 constitutional referendum results 

revealed significant clues as to what could be 

the results of the June 2011 general elections.

The AK Party’s referendum campaign strategy,

constructed around “democratic freedoms,” 

resonated strongly among voters in Turkey. 

Having analyzed the geographic distribution 

of votes during the referendum, this report 

demonstrates that the opposition parties took 

the risk of becoming merely local or regional 

parties while the AK Party was the only party

with the political discourse that would address 

the themes that concerned voters across Tur-

key. The June 2011 general elections may prove

to be the most important elections in Turkey’s 

recent electoral history. Just as a strong prefer-

ence for “democratic freedoms” among voters 

became clear during the referendum, the up-

coming general election in Turkey is poised to 

determine who is to survive Turkey’s political 

landscape over the next decade.

INSIGHTS  FOR  JUNE  2011  GENERAL

ELECTIONS

 The referendum result is a clear 

sign of two major changes in Turkish politics. 

The first change has to do with the basic 

dynamics of politics, which in the past revolved 

around right vs. left and center vs. periphery 

dichotomies.  Clearly,  a  broader  debate,  i.e.

democracy vs. tutelary system, has taken the 

center stage in Turkish politics. The second 

major change is the fact that AK Party is, and

has been since 2002, able to determine the 

“rules of the game” of politics. That virtually all 

opposition parties determined their position 

on an anti-AK Party platform is the proof that

the  AK  Party  has  gone  beyond  a  traditional

political party to become a major actor in the 

political life in Turkey.

The AK Party is likely to hold onto its base and

current constituency while trying to expand its

mandate by making inroads into the MHP and

BDP strongholds.

•  The AK Party may try to frame the general

elections as a vote for the continuation of 

democratic processes by arguing that there 

remains the unfinished business of draft-

ing a new constitution, as the party leader 

Erdoğan has already promised.

•  The CHP faces a serious dilemma: it will ei-

ther remain a marginal party with an ultra-

secularist and nationalist agenda or it will 

move to the center by adopting some of the 

issues most voters care about.

•  The CHP is likely to hold onto its coastal

base to a large extent, however, it may find

it very difficult to penetrate AK Party and

MHP  strongholds  in  central  Anatolia  and

elsewhere. 

•  If  the  CHP  can  respond  meaningfully  to

demands for “change,” it may be able to 

increase  its  votes.  If  Kılıçdaroğlu  fails  to

change the party in a significant way, it can 

only hope to hold onto its traditional voter 

base.

•  The MHP has already indicated that it will

continue its nationalist agenda. The ques-

tion  for  the  MHP  will  be  to  what  extent

it can incorporate some of the libertarian 

language to engage liberals while trying to 

reach out to conservatives in central Ana-

tolian regions.

•  The MHP’s success will depend on the ex-

tent to which it can make adjustments in its 

secularist and hardline rhetoric in order to 

swing AK Party voters.

•  The BDP seems to have made the choice of

being an ethnic-based party. Given that the 

ten percent national threshold is unlikely to 

be repealed, the party will try to show its 

strength in its traditional strongholds while 

trying to expand its voter base in large cities

where there are large numbers of Kurdish 

immigrants.

•  The  BDP’s  success  depends  on  the  AK

Party’s  ability  to  seriously  build  upon  its

‘Democratic Opening’ by finding a viable 

solution to the Kurdish problem. If the AK

Party is seen by Kurds as taking notewor-

thy steps in that regard, the BDP’s reach will

likely remain limited if not diminished.

•  The  BDP  will  need  to  be  careful  about

alienating non-governmental organizations 

whose main agenda often reflects a concern 

for democratization as opposed to ethnic 

politics.

---