The First Big Constitutional Breakthrough in Ottoman-Turkish Constitutionalism: The 1921 Constitution

Demirhan Burak Çelik

Galatasaray University

The 1921 Constitution, adopted by the first Turkish Grand National Assembly (TGNA) on 20 January 1921, symbolizes the first big constitutional breakthrough in Ottoman-Turkish constitutionalism. From its chosen name to its very last provision, this constitution reflects a different approach in Turkey’s constitutional history. 

The ‘Unnamed’ Constitution 

During the Ottoman Empire, the term ‘Basic Law’ (Kanun-ı Esasî) was initially used in place of the word ‘constitution’ and the first constitution of 1876 was thus named. But the constituents of 1921 refrained from using this original term and opted instead for the title of ‘Basic Establishment Act’ (Teşkilât-ı Esasiye Kanunu). The rationale for this choice was twofold. First, the title was deemed more appropriate for a text relating to the organisation of the State. Second, it was suitably benign and thus designed to forestall any long discussions about the future of the sultanate and conceal the latent goal of establishing a republican system of government. However, some conservative representatives seized on its constitutional character and opposed its adoption. The Speaker of the Parliament, Mustafa Kemal, responded by underlining the constituent power of the TGNA.  

The New ‘State of Turkey’ 

The 1921 Constitution represented the establishment of a new state: Turkey. According to Article 3 of this text, “The State of Turkey is governed by the Grand National Assembly”. It should be underlined that the Ottoman Empire was still officially existent when this provision was enacted. The declaration of the establishment of a new state absent the collapse of the state already existing within the same territory is one of the most revolutionary features of the 1921 Constitution, as noted by eminent scholarship on Ottoman-Turkish constitutional developments. 

The words ‘State of Turkey’ held a democratic connotation that implied that the lands on which the new state was to be established would cease being ‘Ottoman lands’ as provided under the 1876 Constitution. It is also interesting to observe that the new state was not named ‘Turkish State’ in reference to the nation, but ‘State of Turkey’ in reference to the territory. This could be explained by the international and domestic alliance policies pursued by the Kemalist leadership during the War of Independence. These policies were twofold. On the one hand, the Kemalists sought Bolshevik support against imperialist intervention in international politics. On the other hand, they also sought domestic support from the Kurds and other non-Turkish peoples within the country. The effects of these policies are clearly visible in the 1921 Constitution. 

Republican and Secular Essence 

By introducing the principle of national sovereignty, the 1921 Constitution departed from the hitherto valid absolutist conception of sovereignty. According to the 1876 Constitution, the Sultan was sovereign, and his personality was immune and sacred (art. 5). In contrast, the first article of the 1921 Constitution reads as follows: “Sovereignty belongs to the nation without any restriction or condition. The administrative system is based on the principle that the people govern their destiny personally and effectively.” This article implied a radical change in Turkish constitutional history as it nullified the Sultanate’s former source of legitimacy and established a new one. Since then, the legitimacy of the Turkish constitutional and political order is based upon the principle of national sovereignty. It is also noteworthy that by vesting the sovereignty in the nation without any restriction or condition, Article 1 of the 1921 Constitution left no room for the monarchy unlike the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, which provided that “the principle of any sovereignty lies primarily in the nation.” In this regard, the article can also be read as a provision reflecting the republican and secular essence of the Constitution. Thus, it was hardly surprising that on 29 October 1923, a republic would be declared by amendment to the 1921 Constitution. 

The First and Only Assembly Government in Turkey 

This anti-monarchist approach can also be observed in the system of government preferred by the 1921 Constitution. This document, uniquely in the constitutional history of Turkey, provided an assembly government model wherein the legislative and executive powers were vested in the TGNA, itself deemed to be “the only and true representative of the nation” (art. 2). According to this model, the TGNA could directly give instructions to the Ministers or replace them, whereas the Council of Ministers lacked the power to dissolve the TGNA. The post of Head of State was not contemplated in the Constitution, once again to avoid questions on the future of the Sultanate. The Constitution attributed presidential powers, such as the signing of parliamentary and governmental decrees (art. 9) to the Speaker of the Assembly – namely, Mustafa Kemal – and created a post of ‘Deputy Speaker’ who acted as Speaker of the Parliament. Moreover, some vestigial Ottoman parliamentary practices, such as the individual or collective responsibility of the ministers, were also evident in the first TGNA. 

The First and Last Constitution to Provide for the Widest Local Autonomy 

By virtue of the fact that it attributed the widest degree of autonomy to local governments, the 1921 Constitution has a unique place in the constitutional history of Turkey. Fourteen of its twenty-four articles were devoted to local governments. It provided that Turkey be divided into three administrative units, namely provinces (vilayetler), districts (kazalar) and townships (nahiyeler). The provinces and townships would be autonomous, with their own councils (şura) whose members would be elected by the people living within those units. The ‘[r]egulation and administration’ of education, health, finance, agriculture, public works and social policies was left under the authority of county councils, whereas the central government was responsible for domestic politics, international relations and international finance, religious, military and judicial affairs (art. 11). Soviet inspiration and the quest for Kurdish support could explain this system of administration. The influence of the local congress governments, which arose in Anatolia after the Armistice of Mudros in order to secure the rights of the people in the event of a collapse of the Ottoman Empire, should also be taken into account. Although these provisions concerning local autonomy have never been enforced, they remain a point of reference in contemporary Turkish politics, especially in the context of the resolution of the Kurdish question. 

The Second Constitutional Breakthrough: 2017 Amendments and Beyond 

Nearly a hundred years after the drafting of the 1921 Constitution, with the Referendum of 16 April 2017, Turkey amended the 1982 Constitution which remains in force. This constitutional amendment can be described as the second big breakthrough in the country’s constitutional history given that it tossed aside a century-old parliamentary system and introduced an ersatz  version of a presidential system in its stead. One can find both similarities and contradictions when comparing the first and second breakthroughs. The similarities are rather formalistic. As to the appellation, like the drafters of the 1921 Constitution who preferred the term ‘Basic Establishment Act’ rather than ‘Basic Law’, the drafters of the 2017 amendment have avoided using the term ‘presidential system’ and, instead, coined the ‘system of the presidency of the republic’ (Cumhurbaşkanlığı Hükümet Sistemi). There may be two reasons for this choice. Firstly, it would have been difficult to attract support for a presidential system from the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), a new ally of the governing Justice and Development Party (AKP) and a longstanding opponent of presidentialism. Secondly, it would seem that the new allies decided to benefit from the term ‘President of the Republic’ and its association to the legacy of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk.  

The concentration of power is the second point of convergence between the 1921 Constitution and the 2017 amendments. However, this commonality conceals a larger contradiction between the two texts. The 1921 Constitution envisaged the concentration of the State’s powers in the TGNA in order to limit the powers of the Sultan. The 2017 amendments, in contrast, sought to eliminate all checks and balances in order to concentrate all the State powers in the hands of one person, the President of the Republic. 

As mentioned earlier, the 1921 Constitution attributed great importance to local autonomy. The 2017 amendments, on the contrary, took place under circumstances in which several elected mayors had been suspended from office and replaced by new officials assigned by the Minister of Internal Affairs. It should also be underlined that, during the referendum process, thirteen Members of Parliament were detained after their parliamentary immunities had been lifted by means of a highly controversial constitutional amendment. Moreover, the 2017 referendum was held under the conditions of a state of emergency, declared following the 15 July 2016 attempted military coup, which oppressively limited free speech. 

To sum up, the 2017 amendments reflects Turkey’s regression towards constitutional autocracy and provides a template for an unsustainable system that is contrary to the constitutional and political traditions and realities of the country. It is therefore not surprising to observe that, two years after its entry into force, a demand for a new constitution has been voiced by the President of the Republic. What is surprising, however, is that the officials of the ruling AKP now refer to a text which is so essentially opposed to the 2017 amendments, that is the1921 Constitution. 

Demirhan Burak Çelik is Associate Professor of Constitutional Law at Galatasaray University. 

Suggested Citation: Demirhan Burak Çelik, ‘The First Big Constitutional Breakthrough in Ottoman-Turkish Constitutionalism: The 1921 Constitution’ IACL-AIDC Blog (11 March 2021) https://blog-iacl-aidc.org/centenary-of-the-turkish-constitution/2021/3/11/the-first-big-constitutional-breakthrough-in-ottoman-turkish-constitutionalism-the-1921-constitution.