Not at warfare

1. The title of the Article 87 of the Constitution of the Republic of Turkey reads: “Duties and powers of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey.” The article lists the duties and powers of the parliament in “general”. One of those powers is to “declare war.” This is how the article ends: “and to exercise the powers and carry out the duties envisaged in the other articles of the Constitution.”

Therefore, parliamentary powers are outlined in full on this article and others within the structure. Only the structure assigns duties and powers to the parliament.

2. The Article 78 of the Constitution is entitled: “Deferment of elections and by-elections.” The first clause of the article says: “If holding new elections is deemed impossible because of war, the Grand National Assembly of Turkey may decide to defer elections for a year.” The second clause: “If the grounds do not disappear, the deferment may be repeated in compliance with the procedure for deferment.”

Of course, the structure could also be altered. That is one other topic.

As you may see, deferment or delaying the elections in Turkey is simply attainable “because of war.” This must be a warfare as it’s legally outlined and never simply any warfare; the warfare situations ought to make it unimaginable to carry elections within the nation. The authority to evaluate these situations is the parliament.

The election can’t be delayed since Turkey is not at war. Of course, the structure could also be altered. That is one other topic.

3. Could an election be delayed solely at wartime as a result of the structure says so?

As far as I perceive, those that ask this query are , or making an attempt to know onto, a 2012 verdict by the Constitutional Court of Turkey. I don’t consider it’s attainable to tug something helpful from this verdict, which was about some articles of the Law for the Presidential Elections being unconstitutional. I can’t bore you with particulars, however the verdict might be learn here.

Acts of God?

The parliamentary deputies who introduced the matter to the eye of the courtroom claimed the fifth article of the presidential election legislation, which is on deferring the elections, was unconstitutional, however the excessive courtroom rejected their attraction.

In the reason of the rejection, the excessive courtroom commented that it is probably not attainable to carry elections “under any condition” and “acts of god” can also be grounds for delay in case additionally they make free elections unimaginable.

The Court verdict options feedback reminiscent of “war,” “acts of god” and “not under any condition”, which lack the clear provisions of the structure. However, it additionally underlines that it’s mandatory that the situations ought to make it virtually unimaginable at no cost elections to be held.

It’s an try to muddy the waters.

While there are those that view this verdict as presumably giving grounds for delay, it’s apparent that the situations for not with the ability to maintain free elections aren’t legitimate in Turkey in the present day.

God forbid, if a hypothetical catastrophe would occur a number of days shy of the elections, then lets say that it would not be attainable to carry free elections and the “acts of god” argument may very well be thought-about. That is just not the case now.

So briefly, it’s not attainable to delay the parliamentary and the presidential elections, that are to be held on the identical day. The rumblings masked as a constitutional debate are literally an try to muddy the waters, which ought to stop immediately.