Ruling Party Follows a Different Path in the Grand National Assembly Last Night: Tactic to Silence Opposition!

The ruling party in Turkey's Grand National Assembly employed an unconventional tactic during a recent "package bill" debate, drawing sharp criticism from the opposition. Traditionally, when the opposition submits amendment proposals, the commission, dominated by the ruling party, would state its disagreement, allowing the opposition MP to speak for five minutes on their proposal. However, in a shift of procedure, the ruling party's commission declared it "agreed" with the opposition's amendments.

“

Your stance is absolutely incompatible with the rulebook, parliamentary traditions, and the understanding of democracy.

This maneuver effectively bypassed the standard speaking time for opposition MPs. According to parliamentary rules, if a commission agrees with an amendment, it is presented directly for the general assembly's approval without debate. This prevented the proposing opposition party from explaining their own amendments. Subsequently, the ruling party's majority in the general assembly rejected these "agreed-upon" amendments.

The opposition vehemently protested this procedural change, arguing it violated parliamentary traditions and democratic principles. Murat Emir, then CHP's Group Deputy Chair, stated that the approach was incompatible with the parliamentary rulebook, established practices, and the understanding of democracy. He warned that opening this path could lead to the effective closure of parliamentary debate.

“

If you open this path once... if you try to open it once, it closes, and there will be no possibility of discussion in this parliament again; this means the closure of parliament.

Parliamentary Deputy Speaker Celal Adan, from the MHP, defended the action by citing Article 87 of the internal regulations, which he read aloud. He asserted that since the commission agreed with the proposal, no speech was permitted. However, Emir countered that this tactic amounted to the "de facto closure of parliament" and a "coup attempt" if implemented by disregarding the rulebook and constitution, urging the speaker not to be a party to such actions.

“

If you think you can abolish this by trampling on the rulebook and the constitution like this, it means the abolition of parliament, it means a coup attempt!