UniDem Conference "Constitution making as an instrument of democratic transition" (Istanbul)
08/10/1992 - 10/10/1992
Örneğin: Hukukun Üstünlüğü, the Rule of Law demek değil. Bu kavram bu şekilde İtalyancada bile yok. Fransızlarda varsa da kullanmazlar, Almanların Rechtsstaat'ının yine bununla alakası yok. Doğrusunu keşfetmenin yolu şu, Antonio La Pergola, bu metinde, gerçekten de bu Anayasa Mahkemesi işinin ustası Amerikalı hukukçulardan eski Supreme Court başkanı Paul Freund'un sözlerine yer veriyor ve daha iyi anlamamızı sağlıyor, sene de 1992...
"Democracy as a living set of rules is shaped not only by the basic charters and statute books but by the judicial work which mediates between large principles and particular problems, between the high tension charge of philosophy and the reduced voltage of serviceable current. These are the words of Paul Freund, an unforgettable student of the Supreme Court of the United States. The idea of judicial review has materialised this side of the Ocean in the shape of the Constitutional Court, now a staple feature in the new constitutions of Europe no less than in the older ones. A parallel growth has occurred in the importance of international Courts. All this testifies to an increasing confidence in law as the reliable source of the guarantees that ensure the stability of the political system, the proper balance between conflicting claims such as those of individual freedom versus authority, or local interest versus centralisation, whatever the level of the powers involved. The conviction has spread throughout Europe that a good constitutional court is the foundation stone of a sound democracy.
"Il Rule of Law identifica la fonte primaria dell'ordinamento non già nella legge, come gli ordinamenti di Civil Law, bensì nella giurisprudenza."
Yani nasıl ki siyasetçi toplumsal meselelerde, çatışmalarda demokrasi, devlete karşı olumlu düzenleyici katkılarda bulunmak için halka söylemsel bir zemin sunmakla yükümlüyse, yargı da hukuki bir zemini göstermekle yükümlüdür, bazı haklar hemen gerçekleştirmek için mümkün olmayabilir ancak bu insan haklarının zedelenmesine engel değildir ve hukukçunun yine görevi çözüm yolları aramaktır.
-
İtalya'da hukuk diye bir üniversite bölümü bile yok. Toplumun farklı kesimlerinin elbette hak ihtiyaçları ve devletle ilişkilerindeki eksiklikleri inceleyebilirsiniz ancak bunlar zaten başka alanların konularıdır. Hak gazeteciliği de hak savunuculuğu da boş kavramlardır, mesele konuyu ilgili kurumlara taşıyabiliyo musun taşıyamıyo musun? Mesele budur. Örneğin Burcu Karakaş'ın yaptığı gazeteciliğin sınırları açısından güzel bir örnek ve takdiri hak eden bir arşivleme çalışması ancak hak savunuculuğu değil, zaten hukuku ilgili kurumlar savunur. Bırakın bugüne kadar hukuk meselesini yerli yerinde kullanmayı, bugüne kadar aslında hukuku hiç savunmadınız bile... Bunu kötülük olsun diye yapmadınız. Ama cahillikten yaptınız.
-
Rule of Law sadece kanun ile değil yargı ile de yürütmenin sağlanması anlamına geliyor. Yani, yargı, kendi özünde, yürütmeninki gibi demokrasiyi düzenleyen bir rolü kimi zaman üstlendiğine de, bu gerçeğe de dikkat çekiyor. Bu nedenle Georges Vedel yine aynı metinde Kuvvetlerin Ayrılığının çok da açıklayıcı olmadığını ancak, Non-Mixing of Powers'ın daha yerinde bir kavram olduğuna dikkat çekiyor. (Sene 1992) Bu da şuna gelir, yargının görevi kendisine intikal eden "meseleleri" demokrasiyi korumak için kullanmakla yükümlüdür. Verdiği kararlar, görüşler demokrasiyi de ilgilendirir.
Türkiye'de demokrasi yoktur diye birşey yoktur. Nüfus demokrasinin en ilkel, ham, kuru temelidir, mesele bunu zenginleştirmeye çabalamakla başlar... Her ülkenin belli kaideleri vardır onlara da ayrıca sabır gerekir. Boş laflar geldiğini biliyorum ancak doğrusu öğrenilmezse ortada savunulacak birşey kalmaz. Bir de gazetecilere tüyo: BBC 4'un yayınlarının belki %80'i atmasyon, ama mesele hassas dengeleri, çatışmaları ortaya koyabilmek.
-
A. DEMOCRACY AGAINST TOTALITARIANISM
28. In a sense, democracy is the system in which, in the absence of unanimity, collective decisions fall to the majority.
But as many authors have observed, this function of the majority implies a consensus on the coexistence of the majority and the minority. Those in the minority in a democracy disagree with the majority, except on one point: that all must continue to live together, with the risk for one camp, and the chance for the other, that the minority will become the majority.
In addition, the minority, as a group or as individuals, have "reserves" defined principally by human rights.
Democracy is therefore at once a system in which the majority decides and an "anti-totalitarianism", opposed to the totality of the rules applicable to social life being monopolised by the same man or group of men.
In the context of the revolutions of the XVII or XVIII centuries (Great Britain, the United States, France), marked by the dominance of the monarch, this struggle against totalitarianism focused on a struggle for the sharing of political decision-making between the executive, legislative and judicial branches, according to the precepts (not absolutely in agreement) of LOCKE, MONTESQUIEU and the Fathers of the American Constitution.
But if the separation of powers is an essential aspect of democratic constitutional theory, it must not be forgotten that it is simply one factor in this rejection of totalitarianism.
Firstly, because political reality has sometimes given the legal formulations of the separation of powers an unexpected content. Although, in theory, in Great Britain the Government and the House of Commons have distinct powers and the means of influencing each other (political accountability of the Government, right of dissolution) are balanced, it has been argued that in fact the majority party, because of the sovereignty of the majority in Commons and party discipline, controls both the legislature and the executive. But it is here that such powerful anti-totalitarian factors come into play that no one has ever suggested that Great Britain was a totalitarian, dictatorial or simply authoritarian State. These factors are: the prerogatives of the Opposition; political pluralism; rights and freedoms, particularly of expression; local self-government; the independence of the judiciary. Similarly, in the United States, which is legally very attached to a strict separation of powers, presidential power is limited not only by the prerogatives of Congress but also by the federal structure.
Furthermore, totalitarianism does not consist only in the concentration of all political power (directly or indirectly) in the same hands (man or party), but also in the fact that the political authorities claim to control all aspects of the individual's life: his upbringing, his intellectual training, his beliefs, his work, his leisure, his private life, etc.
The struggle against totalitarianism therefore implies another series of "separations": separation of State and private life; separation of State and religion or beliefs in the broadest sense; separation of State and work.
-
1992'deki bu semineri okuyarak başlasanız fena olmaz...
“Our initiative can now rely on the driving force of the Council of Europe to which the Venice Commission is proud to belong. UniDem is committed to spreading the spirit of constitutionalism in the world of culture. This is the task ahead of us and we have an apt occasion to highlight its importance. We are at an historical cross-roads between East and West and our gathering is being honoured by the presence of prominent scholars and men of government, whose knowledge and experience were needed to bring into focus the whole cultural area of interest to this conference. We are addressing a broad range of issues arising in unison in all the countries where dictatorship, like the infamous Berlin wall, has broken down. A new generation of charters will change the pattern of Europe and enrich our common history. Each new democracy is a workshop for constitution-making. A creative season of politics is flourishing which we can throughout Europe live with a sense of fresh solidarity. This is the point. It has been a central concern of all times how to frame the constitution and to organise relationships between man and his government. Today, I believe, it is also one in which we feel we are ever more clearly involved regardless of our national origin or outlook. After the epoch making events of 1989, the ordering of democracy in the nation-state is set in a context where the view of the constitution makers, if it is sustained by enlightened public opinion, will be lengthened by a new reach into the scheme of things outside the domestic scene. Our continent is beginning to take shape as one unbroken space of the same political civilization. This is still, to be sure, no more than a tendency. But it is a tendency which the logic of history is carrying forward. Consider, for example, the growth, in role and membership, of the Council of Europe. The values of which our organisation in Strasbourg is the depositary -political pluralism and the rule of law - are taking root in countries where they had no previous foothold. Our Venice Commission is a vantage point to see this process advance in Central and Eastern Europe, and UniDem has been planned as a vehicle to pour the results of our activity into the mainstream of cultural debate.
(…)
This is one of the goals of constitution-making for which, in East and West alike, we must steel ourselves. Let us face it. In ultimate analysis, the technique of democracy is the wise and skilful articulation of collective and individual freedoms: freedom from dictatorship, from want, from war - and civil war is the worst of all possible conflicts - freedom from isolation: democracy is the right and reason for each and all of us to live and grow together. “
Sheraton Oteli, İstanbul, 1992
-
No comments:
Post a Comment