Democracy on Paper: The Constitutional Reality of Türkiye and the UK

When we say the Constitution, most of us think of a thick-bound, long law book listed in articles. It is thought that the structure of the state, the rights and freedoms of citizens, and the limits of authority are determined by this text. Turkey has such a written and detailed constitutional system with the 1982 Constitution. However, in England, one of the oldest democracies in the world, the concept of constitution is applied in a very different way. England is one of the few countries that has shaped the concept of constitution largely on the basis of unwritten traditions and precedents. These two systems have significant differences not only in terms of legal systems, but also in terms of political culture, history, and social structure. In this article, while comparing the constitutional structures of Turkey and England, I discuss the strengths and weaknesses of both systems, their possible risks, and their effects on democracy. Because democracy is determined not only by the constitutional texts, but also by how those texts function and the democratic culture of the society.

Türkiye's Constitutional Structure: Shield or Labyrinth?

In Türkiye, the constitution is above all laws as the highest norm of law and all other regulations must comply with it. This structure theoretically aims to strongly protect individual rights and freedoms. However, Türkiye's constitution contains quite detailed and strict provisions. In order to change the constitution, a high qualified majority, and often a referendum, is required; this makes the change processes difficult. This rigid structure can cause political powers to seek flexibility through extra-constitutional means. State of emergency decrees, omnibus laws and political pressures on constitutional institutions can weaken the protective function of the constitution over time. Even the decisions of the Constitutional Court can sometimes be perceived by the political power as advisory rather than binding.

The biggest risk in Türkiye is the tendency towards “authoritarianism within constitutional legitimacy.”

Legitimacy emerges as the fundamental element that ensures the obedience of the governed to the rulers, and legitimate power is called authority. In other words, even if the constitutional text exists, democratic regression can occur through the abuse of political will.

The Unwritten Constitutional Model of England: Between Flexibility and Fragility In England, the constitution is not a single, codified text; it is a dynamic structure formed by the combination of historical documents, court decisions, laws and deep-rooted practices. This traditional structure, extending from Magna Carta to the Bill of Rights and the Human Rights Act, forms the basis of state functioning. The flexibility of this system provides the capacity to adapt rapidly to changing social and political needs. However, the same flexibility also allows the political power that holds the parliamentary majority to make restrictive regulations on rights and freedoms. In England, the task of constitutional review is predominantly carried out by political practices and the culture of institutional balance rather than the courts. This fragility has manifested itself concretely during the Brexit process. The attempt to suspend the powers of the Parliament was stopped by the intervention of the judiciary. This intervention is based not on constitutional texts but on legal tradition and democratic culture.

The Decisive Role of Political Culture The main difference between Turkey and England is not the presence or absence of constitutional texts, but the way political cultures operate. In Turkey, loyalty to authority is high, and the “state is father” mentality is strong. Institutions sometimes become open to personal authorities. Polarization is high, and constitutional amendments frequently increase social tension. In England, there is a structure in which institutional traditions and a culture of control are internalized and balance mechanisms are more established. However, when democratic maturity erodes, this structure can also rapidly deteriorate.

Laws or Culture?

Although constitutional texts are important tools in protecting the rights and freedoms of society, the real determining factor is democratic culture and institutional resistance. Democracy lives not only with written norms but also with the social consciousness, political responsibility and legal culture that puts them into practice.

The different constitutional models of Türkiye and England show us the same basic truth: It is not the laws but the legal culture that keeps democracy alive.