TURKEY: CONSTITUTIONAL REFERENDUM PASSES; LEGAL

C O N F I D E N T I A L ANKARA 002606 SIPDIS SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 10/21/2017 TAGS: PGOV PREL TU SUBJECT: TURKEY: CONSTITUTIONAL REFERENDUM PASSES; LEGAL CHALLENGES LIKELY REF: A. ANKARA 2575 ¶B. ANKARA 2604 ¶C. ANKARA 2414 Classified By: Political Counselor Janice G. Weiner, for Reasons 1.4 (b ,d) ¶1. (C) SUMMARY. Turks passed a referendum package of constitutional amendments -- including a provision on direct election of the president -- by a comfortable margin in October 21 voting. However, confusion persists on a number of points, including how and when to implement the changes. Opposition politicians are already looking for ways to challenge the referendum results in court. END SUMMARY. ¶2. (SBU) Turkish voters approved a constitutional amendment package with a solid 68.9 percent on October 21. As predicted, turnout was low for Turkey (which has mandatory suffrage),but at 67.5 percent, still higher than expected. Supreme Election Board (SEB) President Muammer Aydin said that there were no (security-related) incidents. The package will take effect once the SEB announces the official results in a few days. ¶3. (SBU) The package has five major points: -- Allow the public to elect the president, rather than parliament. -- Shorten parliament's term from 5 to 4 years. -- Shorten the president's term from 7 to 5 years. -- Allow the president to seek a second term (until now, only one term was permitted). -- Clarify that the default quorum requirement for parliamentary action is 184 votes, unless otherwise specified in the constitution. ¶4. (SBU) Opposition Republican People's Party (CHP) stated it will apply to the SEB to annul the referendum in response to allegations by CHP provincial organizations that voting started in some places before election officials were in place; they are currently gathering evidence in support of the complaint. If the SEB does not respond favorably, CHP indicated it will seek a ruling from the Constitutional Court. Others are threatening to submit the entire referendum to the Constitutional Court for review because the text was changed after voting had begun at border gates (reftels). If necessary, they vowed to take the matter to the European Court of Human Rights. ¶5. (C) Although the SEB last week decided that parliament's mid-stream adjustments to the referendum text did not warrant postponing or suspending the vote, a number of questions and potential legal vulnerabilities linger. Will President Gul serve 5 or 7 years? Will he be entitled to a second term? Similarly, will MPs elected in July serve four or five years? ¶6. (C) COMMENT. This referendum is Turkey's fifth; the previous four were for adopting new constitutions (1960 and 1982),for lifting political bans imposed during a coup period, and for moving up local elections. All enjoyed a turnout of over 80 percent. CHP's confusing guidance to voters -- stay home, or if you must vote, vote no -- may have added to the comparatively low turnout, but not enough to challenge the legitimacy of the results. CHP's miscalculation and legal scrambling reinforces its current reputation as flaccid and feckless. Just as notably, AKP failed to manage the referendum strategically after hastily launching it last spring. The vote itself was overshadowed by Sunday's PKK terrorist attack (ref B). Many view the referendum as a colossal waste -- all the more so if AKP succeeds in reducing presidential authority as part of its efforts to overhaul the constitution (ref C). If the YTL 19 fine for not voting were actually collected from the nearly 14 million who stayed home Sunday, the GOT could rake in YTL 263 million to help pay for what many see as a legislative fiasco. END COMMENT. Visit Ankara's Classified Web Site at http://www.state.sgov.gov/p/eur/ankara/ WILSON