This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/16/world/europe/turkey-referendum-polls-erdogan.html

The article has changed 11 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 4 Version 5
Turkey Votes on Broad New Powers for President Erdogan Claims Victory in Turkey Vote Giving Broad New Powers to President
(about 1 hour later)
ISTANBUL — Turkey voted on Sunday on a referendum that would substantially reconfigure the political system and grant sweeping powers to the office of the presidency. ISTANBUL — President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey claimed victory by a narrow and still-contested margin in a referendum that grants sweeping powers to his office, in a watershed moment that the country’s opposition fears may cement his one-man rule.
President Recep Tayyip Erdogan hopes Turks at home and abroad will vote “yes” to his demand for the reconfiguration, but his critics fear the vote may add the weight of the constitution to his de facto one-man rule. With just under 99 percent of ballots counted, “Yes” had 51.33 percent of votes cast, and “No” had 48.67 percent, according to the state-run news agency, Anadolu.
If passed, the proposed changes would have a profound impact on a country that is a leading player in the Syrian civil war, a major way station along the migration routes to Europe and a crucial Middle Eastern partner of the United States and Russia. But the country’s election commission has yet to announce official results, and Turkey’s main opposition party said they would demand a recount of about 37 percent of ballot boxes, containing around 2.5 million votes.
The latest results suggest the vote was close, despite the government’s prolonged intimidation of “no” campaigners, several of whom have been shot at and beaten while on the stump by persons unknown. The constitutional change, if it stands, will allow the winner of the 2019 presidential election to assume full control of the government, ending the current parliamentary political system.
By Sunday night local time, the “no” camp had overtaken the “yes” ballots in some big cities, with a majority of the votes counted, according local news outlets. Its ramifications, however, would be immediate. The “yes” vote in the referendum would be a validation of the current leadership style of President Erdogan, who has been acting as a de facto head of government since his election in 2014 despite having no constitutional right to wield such power as the office of the president was meant to be an impartial role that lacks full executive authority.
The new system would, among other things: The result would tighten Mr. Erdogan’s grip on the country, which is one of the leading external actors in the Syrian civil war, a major way station along the migration routes to Europe and a crucial Middle Eastern partner of the United States and Russia.
The referendum was conducted in an atmosphere of fear, with the campaign characterized by prolonged intimidation of opposition members, several of whom were shot at or beaten while on the stump by persons unknown.
The opposition questioned the legitimacy of the referendum after the election board made a last-minute decision to increase the burden needed to prove allegations of ballot-box stuffing. At least one instance of alleged voter fraud appeared to be captured on camera.
“We are receiving thousands of complaints on election fraud; we are evaluating them one by one,” said Erdal Aksunger, the deputy head of the Republican People’s Party, or C.H.P.
Since a failed coup last summer, Turkey has been under a state of emergency, a situation that allowed the government to fire about 130,000 people suspected of being connected to the failed putsch, and to arrest about 45,000.
The new system will, among other changes:
• Abolish the post of prime minister and transfer executive power to the president.• Abolish the post of prime minister and transfer executive power to the president.
• Allow the newly empowered president to issue decrees and appoint many of the judges and officials tasked with scrutinizing his decisions. • Allow the newly empowered president to issue decrees and appoint many of the judges and officials responsible for scrutinizing his decisions.
Members of the opposition are concerned that the new system would threaten the separation of powers on which liberal democracies have traditionally depended. • Limit the president to two five-year terms, but give the option of running for a third term if Parliament truncates the second one by calling for early elections.
• Limit the president to two five-year terms, but give the option of running for a third term if Parliament truncated the second one by calling for early elections.
• Allow the president to order disciplinary inquiries into any of Turkey’s 3.5 million civil servants, according to an analysis by the head of the Turkish Bar Association.• Allow the president to order disciplinary inquiries into any of Turkey’s 3.5 million civil servants, according to an analysis by the head of the Turkish Bar Association.
“It’s a presidential system, but not like in the U.S. — not a democratic presidential system,” Metin Feyzioglu, the head of the Turkish bar association, said in a recent interview with The New York Times. Members of the opposition are concerned that the new system will threaten the separation of powers on which liberal democracies have traditionally depended.
Mr. Erdogan’s supporters deny that the proposed system would limit political and judicial oversight. If opposition parties won control of Parliament, they would be able to override the president’s decrees with their own legislation, while also asserting greater control over judicial appointments, the referendum’s supporters contend. “It represents a remarkable aggrandizement of Erdogan’s personal power and quite possibly a death blow to vital checks and balances in the country,” said Professor Howard Eissenstat, a Turkey expert at the Project on Middle East Democracy, a Washington think tank. “Judicial independence was already shockingly weak before the referendum; the new system makes that worse.”
The “yes” camp also argues that a strong, centralized government would make Turkey better able to tackle its many challenges, including a troubled economy, the world’s largest Syrian refugee population, two terrorism campaigns, a civil war against Kurdish insurgents and the Syrian war across Turkey’s southern border. Mr. Erdogan’s supporters say the new system will not limit political and judicial oversight. If opposition parties win control of Parliament, they could override the president’s decrees with their own legislation, while also asserting greater control over judicial appointments, supporters of the new Constitution contend.
“Stable governments have been able to handle crises more effectively, implement structural reforms in due time and render the investment climate more favorable by increasing predictability,” Mr. Erdogan’s spokesman, Ibrahim Kalin, wrote in commentary for CNN’s website. The victorious “yes” camp also argues that a strong, centralized government will make Turkey better able to tackle its many challenges, including a troubled economy, the world’s largest Syrian refugee population, two terrorism campaigns, a civil war against Kurdish insurgents and the Syrian war across Turkey’s southern border.
After a failed coup last year, Mr. Erdogan has unleashed a vast purge of thousands of judges, teachers, doctors and other professionals from their jobs, contributing to an atmosphere of fear. “Stable governments have been able to handle crises more effectively, implement structural reforms in due time and render the investment climate more favorable by increasing predictability,” Mr. Erdogan’s spokesman, Ibrahim Kalin, wrote in a commentary piece for CNN’s website.
The authorities have also often prevented “no” campaigners from holding rallies and events, while Mr. Erdogan and his allies have frequently implied that their opponents are in alliance with terrorist groups or the alleged leaders of last year’s failed coup. The fearful environment in which the referendum was conducted has led watchdogs to question the fairness of the campaign. In addition to the vast purges of perceived opposition members, the authorities also often prevented “no” campaigners from holding rallies and events. And Mr. Erdogan and his allies frequently implied that their opponents were allied with terrorist groups or the suspected leaders of last year’s failed coup.
Hundreds of election observers have been barred from watching the vote, and thousands of Kurds displaced by fighting in southeastern Turkey may not be able to vote because of their lack of an address, according to the Independent Election Monitoring Network, a Turkish watchdog. Analyses of television coverage showed that the “yes” campaign received disproportionately more airtime than its opponents.
“Right now, it’s such a tense and fearful environment that not only are we as a formal network affected, but we fear that participation by the public will also be affected,” said Melike Tokatlioglu, a researcher at the network. Hundreds of election observers were also barred from monitoring the vote, and thousands of Kurds displaced by fighting in southeastern Turkey may not have been able to vote because they have no address, according to the Independent Election Monitoring Network, a Turkish watchdog.
Should Mr. Erdogan win the referendum, some analysts believe, he may initially try to rebuild his relations with the West, which were severely damaged during the referendum campaign as Mr. Erdogan sought to manufacture diplomatic crises in order to energize his base at home. “The current political climate and the atmosphere of fear makes the timing of the referendum a worrisome one,” the network said in a report published on the eve of the poll.
Now that Mr. Erdogan has won the referendum, analysts are divided about what he will do next.
Some believe he may initially try to rebuild his relations with the West, which were severely damaged during the referendum campaign as he sought to manufacture diplomatic crises in order to energize his base at home.
After Germany and the Netherlands blocked Turkish officials from campaigning in those countries, Mr. Erdogan said that both nations had demonstrated Nazi-like behavior, drawing a rebuke from leaders like Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany.After Germany and the Netherlands blocked Turkish officials from campaigning in those countries, Mr. Erdogan said that both nations had demonstrated Nazi-like behavior, drawing a rebuke from leaders like Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany.
Ozgur Unluhisarcikli, the director of the Ankara office of the German Marshall Fund, a think tank, said he expected a victorious Mr. Erdogan to lead “a charm offensive towards Europe and the U.S. to gain validation of the new system — and such a charm offensive might include correcting some of the democratic backsliding that we’ve seen in Turkey.” Ozgur Unluhisarcikli, the director of the Ankara office of the German Marshall Fund of the United States, a think tank, said he expected a victorious Mr. Erdogan to lead “a charm offensive towards Europe and the U.S. to gain validation of the new system — and such a charm offensive might include correcting some of the democratic backsliding that we’ve seen in Turkey.”
“On the other hand, if his charm offensive is not reciprocated,” he added, “then he might start initiating a Plan B, which involves tightening his grip on Turkish society.” “On the other hand, if his charm offensive is not reciprocated,” Mr. Unluhisarcikli added, “then he might start initiating a Plan B, which involves tightening his grip on Turkish society.”
In the event of a “no” vote, Mr. Erdogan is not likely to let the matter drop. But Professor Eissenstat said it was unlikely that Mr. Erdogan would spend any time repairing relationships with the opposition.
Most expect him to call for early elections in an attempt to secure his political party a parliamentary supermajority that would allow it to pass the constitutional changes without putting them to a second referendum. “Some people have imagined that Erdogan might reboot after a ‘yes’ victory and reach out to the opposition,” he said. “I don’t think that is likely. The purges will continue; Erdogan’s instinct is to crush opposition, not co-opt it.
In the current Parliament, his Justice and Development Party, known as the A.K.P., had to rely on the support of another right-wing party, the M.H.P., to secure the right to hold the referendum. “The question is whether further centralization of power and increased repression can bring stability and allow Erdogan to reboot a troubled economy,” Professor Eissenstat added. “The record of the past 10 years is that the opposite is true.”
But early elections carry risk for Mr. Erdogan. In the event of a “no” vote, a rebel faction in the M.H.P. hopes to take over the leadership of the party.
Should it be successful, the potential new leadership believes it could eat into Mr. Erdogan’s own right-wing electoral base, stymying his attempts to increase his party’s share of parliamentary seats.