11.12.2025 17:40
In his assessment regarding the Can Atalay decision, Prof. Dr. Mustafa Şentop emphasized that the Constitutional Court's individual application decisions are binding. Reminding that the Constitutional Court not only identifies violations but also determines how to remedy them, Şentop stated that similar processes had occurred in the past in the cases of Enis Berberoğlu and Ömer Faruk Gergerlioğlu.
The former president of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey and legal scholar Prof. Dr. Mustafa Şentop met with journalists as part of the 'Anatolian Conversations' Program organized by the Turkish Press Federation (TÜBAF). Mustafa Şentop made extensive statements regarding Turkey's fight against terrorism, the possible "return home/reintegration" regulation, discussions on the new constitution, the Can Atalay decision, and developments in Syria.
Stating that the terrorist organization PKK has effectively ended a long time ago, Şentop said, "It is not enough for the existence of the terrorist organization to come to an end; we want the end of terrorism. We want terrorist organizations to cease to pose a threat to Turkey. In this regard, it is not acceptable for it to end in Turkey but continue to pose a risk just beyond the border."
In response to a question about the amnesty for members of the terrorist organization, Şentop said, "This is a technical issue. It is necessary to look at the entire picture, to see how many people there are, and how the crimes they committed are classified. Beyond a reduction, there could be a state of impunity by granting a period to not commit similar crimes again, for example, if they do not commit crimes within 5 years."
Regarding a question about the terrorist organization SDG/PKK elements in northern Syria, Şentop stated, "Turkey's demand is primarily for a unitary structure in Syria, where different segments are included in that structure. Secondly, it is to cleanse the formations that the PKK has taken on different names from foreign elements."
"EVERYONE AGREES ON THE GOAL OF A TERROR-FREE TURKEY" In response to a question about the "Terror-Free Turkey" process, Şentop said, "The issue is not just between the state's institutions and security forces and a terrorist organization. For this issue to be sustainable and fully resolved, it must also be accepted by other segments of society. We see that there are some anxieties in the field. There are some experiences that have been lived before. But everyone agrees on the goal of a 'Terror-Free Turkey.'"
"THERE IS NO NEED TO REMOVE THE TWO-TERM RULE" In response to a question about whether President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan will run for president again in the elections, Şentop noted: "There is a possibility in the constitution for our esteemed President to run again in the upcoming elections. That is, it cannot be said that 'this path is closed.' There is a regulation in the constitution that allows for this. If the Grand National Assembly of Turkey decides to renew the elections, our esteemed President can run again. Therefore, there is no need to change the constitution or remove the two-term rule. If the Grand National Assembly decides to renew the elections, our esteemed President can run again. Therefore, there is no need to change the constitution or remove the two-term rule. There is a way for this."
"THIS IS NOT A NAS, IT CAN BE CHANGED" In some countries, there is a limitation of two consecutive terms. After taking a break for one term, one can continue again. Therefore, this is not a nas. It can be changed, it can be discussed. But of course, a constitutional amendment is required for this. A certain consensus needs to be established. If it is over 360 but under 400, a referendum is required. A mandatory, urgent referendum. If it is over 400, there is a possibility of being without a referendum. But this is not the only way. If the Grand National Assembly decides to renew the elections, my esteemed President can already run."
CAN ATALAY DECISION In response to a question about the Constitutional Court's decisions regarding Can Atalay's parliamentary membership, Şentop emphasized that individual application decisions are binding. He stated that the Constitutional Court also determines how to remedy the violation of rights in cases where it identifies a violation, recalling that similar examples have occurred in the past. In this context, Şentop cited the cases of Enis Berberoğlu and HDP's Gergerlioğlu, expressing that the justification for delaying some regulations was the controversial applicability of legal changes to the files at that time. Şentop noted that this waiting period is a justified and reasoned process, emphasizing the importance of implementing the Constitutional Court's decisions in terms of legal and democratic responsibility.
NEW CONSTITUTION DISCUSSIONS Devoting a significant portion of his speech to discussions on the new constitution, Şentop stated that the current constitution, particularly in some articles, reflects the conditions of the period it was written, and therefore contains coercive and restrictive provisions that no longer fully align with today's societal needs. Reminding that the 1982 Constitution was prepared under the shadow of coups and with a security-centered understanding, Şentop noted that this has manifested as harsh reflexes in areas such as language, citizenship definition, and identity discussions.
Şentop stated that the fact that the relevant articles of the constitution are still a topic of discussion today indicates the stage of the democratization process in Turkey, emphasizing the importance of framing constitutional regulations in a more liberal, inclusive manner that takes into account the current sociological realities. In this context, he expressed that the constitution could be re-examined with an understanding that recognizes both the integrity of the state and the identities of citizens without being coercive, bringing together social differences instead of conflicting them.
"AN INCLUSIVE AND UNIFYING APPROACH SHOULD BE ADOPTED" Evaluating the discussions particularly revolving around the language issue, Şentop stated that the expression in Article 42 of the current constitution, "no language can be taught to Turkish citizens as their mother tongue," reflects the period's concerns when considered in its historical context; however, he noted that today, the validity of the same concerns has largely diminished in terms of social reality.
Addressing the discussions regarding the definition of citizenship, Şentop stated that explicitly listing cultural identities in constitutional texts or creating a hierarchy in the form of "founding elements" is not compatible with the function of the constitution. He emphasized that constitutions are written not for the construction of social unity and common history, but to determine the legal order and guarantee fundamental rights and freedoms. Şentop expressed that it is not a realistic approach for certain groups in Turkey to expect the new constitution to define their identities with a privileged status within the text.
Şentop stated that the common life and social solidarity in Turkey have been shaped not by the words in constitutional texts, but through a culture of living together throughout history, mutual sacrifice, and mutual respect. Therefore, he emphasized that the new constitution should adopt an inclusive and unifying approach that recognizes all citizens as equal, rather than using language that discriminates between identities or assigns the title of "founding element" to any group.
DISCUSSION ON MOTHER TONGUE AND EDUCATION Şentop remarked that the provision in Article 42 of the constitution stating "no language can be taught as a mother tongue to Turkish citizens" was written with the security reflexes of that period. He noted, "There are contradictory expressions within the same provision, such as 'it can be taught but cannot be taught.' Different languages are already being taught today. This is constitutionally possible as well," he evaluated.
WARNING ON THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUALITY Şentop drew attention to the potential risks of applying similar legal provisions for different organizations such as the PKK and FETÖ in terms of the constitutional principle of equality. He emphasized that the regulation needs to be prepared in a very detailed, inclusive, and at the same time restrictive manner; otherwise, he stated, "demands for the same coverage from other organizations may arise."
For this reason, Şentop expressed that the process technically does not allow for errors, stating that even the smallest ambiguity in the law could lead to different interpretations and legal gaps in the future; therefore, he said that legal expertise, data from security units, and social sensitivities should be evaluated together during the preparation phase.