What is a constitution? What happens when a government no longer abides by it? How can power be restrained? Why do pluralism, the rule of law, and the separation of powers matter? The list of questions could easily be extended. But Turkey today raises a far more urgent one: what happens when those in power no longer feel bound by the very constitution that grants them legitimacy? At first glance, this may sound like an abstract legal debate. In reality, it goes to the heart of modern democracy itself.
All of these are matters of political and state theory, yet neither political actors nor ordinary citizens—the subjects of political decisions—often spend much time reflecting on them. When it comes to the fundamental institutions of the state, we frequently encounter makeshift trial-and-error approaches, indifference, or outright neglect. Yet if there were an electrical problem in your home or a broken faucet, you would never rely on trial and error or accept temporary patchwork solutions. Nor would you simply ignore the issue. The fact that people often place less importance on problems related to the state—which directly affect both their lives and their families—than they do on plumbing or electrical issues in their homes is itself something worth reflecting upon.
Within the social conditions into which we are born, socialized, educated, and even indoctrinated, we often live our lives without even realizing what we do not know about power relations and governance. Yet questioning how our taxes are spent or asking why our children cannot properly learn a foreign language in school are matters directly tied to our quality of life. These are issues of social organization and simple but powerful examples of why politics plays such a decisive role in our daily lives.
The rights you possess alone mean little; you must be aware of those rights and consciously demand what belongs to you. Most of us would care if a small amount of money were stolen from our pockets or if a shopkeeper gave us incorrect change. We would seek justice. But how many of us are equally concerned when the taxes we pay are siphoned away or handed out to political loyalists? Have you ever considered that the treasury consists of resources taken from your own pocket? Every political decision carries a cost. Public resources are created through the taxes paid by citizens. Material decay is a central problem, and at its root lies moral and ethical erosion. Because people fail to exercise their rights—often because they do not even know they possess them—they end up living far below the standard they deserve. Politics and quality of life are interconnected, and the question of monitoring political power directly shapes living standards.
A constitution forms the architecture of the state. Since the difference between a state and an organized criminal syndicate ultimately rests on the existence and application of a constitution, whether a government abides by the constitution is the essential test of its legitimacy.
Governments do not have the freedom to ignore constitutions. Constitutions can always be amended. Citizens have every right to criticize constitutional principles. However, constitutions cannot be changed without obtaining a qualified majority. The mindset that says, “We could not amend it, but we are not obligated to obey it,” destroys legitimacy altogether and constitutes a grave offense. It amounts to an attempted civilian coup. If successful, it becomes a civilian coup in practice and represents one of the gravest crimes imaginable under constitutional order. Refusing to abide by the constitution—the very act that preserves the state itself—amounts to treason and should carry the heaviest legal penalties.
Therefore, something that does not abide by its own constitution can no longer truly be called a state. If a government ignores its constitution, it becomes coup-minded, criminal, traitorous, and illegitimate. It loses not only democratic legitimacy but also its legal foundation. The destruction of constitutional order has already taken place. Even if such a power remains in office or wins elections, that does not legitimize or excuse its actions.
The primary and fundamental purpose of constitutions is to limit executive power.
Since the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215, the central concern of political theory has been limiting the power of rulers. The concept often referred to as the “good king” model—built on the assumption that a ruler may be virtuous—cannot produce sustainable, institutionalized good governance. A king or sultan may be just, ethical, and respectful of rules, but that does not guarantee that those who follow will act similarly. The necessity of controlling power arose precisely because of this dilemma.
The absolute authority of a monarch places him above the law. Constitutional systems create a legal framework that subjects even rulers to law. Inevitably, this requires the law itself to be more powerful than the ruler. Law must therefore be stronger than those who wield political power. The rule of law is not merely a slogan or a pleasant-sounding ideal; it is the essential precondition for good governance and accountability.
The foundation of modern state theory is limited government power. Democracy itself rests on this principle. If governments stood above the law, decay would become inevitable. Consequently, there is a direct relationship between the rule of law and quality of life.
Pluralism—the freedom for people to think differently, which is indispensable to democracy—can exist only under certain conditions. The foundation of these conditions is the rule of law. Its structural basis lies in the separation of powers and the supremacy of the judiciary. In democracies, the judiciary has the final say. Where judicial power is surrendered to the executive branch, democracy and pluralism cannot survive.
In such systems, the state becomes an instrument of oppression and a façade that perpetuates decay. While officials tell you that everything is functioning properly, behind closed doors they seize not only your tax money but also your rights and freedoms.
Therefore, the limits of political choices and policies are defined by the constitution and by law.
Once a political authority abandons the law, it loses legitimacy and renders resistance against it legitimate. In a country where a government detached from the law—and unwilling even to obey its own constitution—has consolidated power, the likelihood of the opposition coming to power through elections becomes slim.
Such regimes evolve into one-man and one-party states, where living conditions deteriorate, and systematic, severe human rights violations become normalized. These are dystopias.
This is the theoretical summary of what has happened in Turkey.
And for these reasons, Turkey is a dystopia.
