The government submitted the “Bill on Constitutional Amendment” to Parliament with the signatures of 26 members of parliament and published it in the Official Gazette.
When it comes to a matter as significant as the Constitution, the first thing to examine is not the text itself but how the process was conducted because the Constitution is not an ordinary law; it is the fundamental contract of the state. For this reason, constitutional amendments must be made not merely by a parliamentary majority, but through broad social and political consensus.
Yet the picture emerging from the very beginning demonstrates the exact opposite.
On the one hand, the government is bringing such a critical amendment as a constitutional change to Parliament with just 26 signatures; on the other hand, some MPs who form the government’s majority have not signed this text. In other words, the government is bringing the constitutional amendment to the agenda not through social consensus, but through a limited political will. This alone is enough to show how problematic and unhealthy the ground upon which this process began is.
The Real Reason Behind the Judicial Gridlock
Initially presented as a technical regulation, the stated purpose of this amendment is to reduce the judicial workload, expedite judicial processes, and strengthen the institutional capacity of the Supreme Court. Indeed, the general justification for the bill also mentions the goals of expediting judicial processes and increasing the court’s capacity.
However, the issue we must discuss today is not limited to this.
Because the judicial gridlock is not merely a technical issue that can be explained solely by the structure of the courts. This bottleneck is also a result of the increasingly entrenched extrajudicial practices in state administration and an arbitrary approach to governance that deviates from the principle of the rule of law.
In an environment where the rule of law is weakened, institutions are discredited, and public administration becomes arbitrary, the burden on the judiciary increases, inevitably. The judiciary does not merely resolve cases; it is also forced to bear the problems created by poor governance.
Therefore, the issue is not merely about changing the structure of the courts. The real issue is whether there is a political will to genuinely strengthen the rule of law.
The Text for Constitutional Amendment Does Not Belong to the Government
It is also important to recall a key fact here.
The constitutional amendment proposal submitted to Parliament today is not, in essence, a text prepared by the government. These provisions are based on technical proposals long advocated by the Supreme Court, aimed at addressing structural issues within the judicial system.
In other words, the issue has emerged from the outset not as a political but as an institutional need for reform.
There is already broad consensus that the provisions in this amendment text are necessary for the judiciary to function more swiftly and effectively in the country. The problem is not the text itself; the problem is how the process is being conducted.
Politics Coming in The Way of Reform
Issues such as constitutional amendments require broad consensus. Such changes should be made through negotiations with the opposition, consultations with legal circles, consideration of the views of different segments of society, and a preparatory process designed to convince the public.
The government reversed this process entirely. Instead of seeking social consensus, it acted unilaterally. Despite all warnings, it dragged the process into a political debate. Thus, it transformed a technical reform agenda—such as constitutional amendments—into a political maneuver.
For this reason, the picture emerging today is quite striking:
A reform initiative launched to resolve the gridlock in the judiciary is already stalled at the very beginning due to the political uncertainty and irresponsibility created by the government.
Where Is the Real Stagnation?
There is indeed a stagnation in the country today. However, this stagnation stems from
- the normalization of corruption in government actions,
- the weakening of institutions,
- the deepening of income inequality and the spread of poverty,
- an arbitrary approach to governance,
- the public’s lack of a sense of security and rising crime rates,
- a lack of resolve,
- and a political style that excludes social consensus.
Judicial reform alone cannot resolve these issues during the current period of collapse. Constitutional amendments will not produce a lasting solution unless the rule of law is strengthened and institutional trust is restored. The solution lies in the renewal of political will. The path to this is through elections.
There is, of course, a need for the judiciary to operate more swiftly and effectively in the country. From this perspective, the provisions included in the constitutional amendment text are necessary.
However, the constitution is not a political maneuvering ground; it is the common contract of society.
For this reason, constitutional amendments should be a matter of social consensus, not political calculations.
Otherwise, the outcome will not change.
A reform initiative aimed at resolving the gridlock in the judiciary is doomed to failure from the start if it is overshadowed by political maneuvering.
And it appears that the government has already blocked this process with its own hands before it even began.
This article was originally published on 17.03.2026
Source: THE GOAL IS NOT A ‘CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT’ BUT A POLITICAL MANEUVER
