Anayasacılık Kavramını Berraklaştırmak

Öz

Demokrasi son yıllarda gittikçe yapısal ve ideolojik anlam kaybına uğramaktadır. Elbette bu husus özellikle temsili demokrasinin karmaşık özelliklerinden kaynaklanmaktadır. Ne var ki demokrasi kadar karmaşık kural ve kurumları bulunmayan anayasacılık denilen kavram da ciddi bir anlam kaybına tabi tutulmaktadır. Çekince, demokrasinin uğradığı yapısal bozukluğun anayasacılığın da başına gelmesidir. Esasen anayasacılık sınırlı devlet olgusuyla ilgilidir. Burada bu olgunun sağlanmasının önemli bir yolu hak ve özgürlüklerin güvence altına alınmasıdır. Yani anayasacılık bir yandan kurumsal bir yapılanmayı diğer yandan da normatif bir düzenlemeyi içermektedir. Anayasal devlete dair temel formülleştirme bundan ibarettir. Fakat son zamanlarda anayasacılığın başına, demokraside olduğu gibi, çeşitli sıfatlar eklenmektedir. Elbette bu sıfatların bazıları olumlu anlamlara da işaret etmektedir. Sorun şu ki, anayasacılık, git gide demin belirttiğimiz orijinal ya da a priori (önsel) anlamını kaybetmektedir. Sonuç olarak bu çalışmanın amacı, demokraside olduğu gibi anayasacılık kavramının çeşitli olumlu ya da olumsuz (hak eksenli ya da ideolojik olsun) sıfatlarla anlamının bulanıklaştırıldığına dikkat çekmektir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Anayasa
• Anayasacılık
• Demokrasi
• Hukuk Devleti
• Sınırlı Devlet

Clarifiying the Concept of Constitutionalism

Öz

Democracy has been increasingly losing its structural and ideological meaning in recent years. This is, of course, particularly due to the complex characteristics of representative democracy. However, the concept of constitutionalism, which lacks the complex rules and institutions of democracy, is also subject to a serious loss of meaning. The drawback is that the structural deterioration suffered by democracy also befalls constitutionalism. Essentially, constitutionalism is related to the concept of limited government. A key way to achieve this is to guarantee rights and freedoms. In other words, constitutionalism encompasses both institutional structuring and normative regulation. This is the basic formulation of the constitutional state. However, recently, as in democracy, various adjectives have been added to the prefix of constitutionalism. Of course, some of these adjectives also indicate positive meanings. The problem is that constitutionalism is gradually losing its original or a priori meaning, as we mentioned earlier. Consequently, the purpose of this study is to highlight how, as in democracy, the concept of constitutionalism is being obscured by various positive and negative adjectives (whether rights-oriented or ideological).

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Constitution
• Constitutionalism
• Democracy
• Rule of Law
• Limited Government

Kaynakça

1. Adeno Addis, ‘Human Dignity in Comparative Constitutional Context: In Search of an Overlapping Consensus’ (2015) 2 (1) Journal of International and Comparative Law 1–28.
2. Albert R, ‘Constitutional Amendment by Stealth’ (2015) 60 (4) McGill Law Journal 673–736.
3. Almog G, ‘The Myth of the Pacifist Japanese Constitution’ (2014) 12 (36) The Asia-Pacific Journal 1–16.
4. Boyd DR, The Environmental Rights Revolution: A Global Study of Constitutions, Human Rights, and the Environment (UBC Press, Toronto 2012).
5. Crandall E, ‘Amendments by Stealth of Provincial Constitutions in Canada’ (2022) 45 (1) Manitoba Law Journal 173–197.
6. Daly E ve May JR, ‘Comparative Environmental Constitutionalism’ (2015) 6 (1) Jindal Global Law Review 9–30.
7. Dixon R ve Landau D, Abusive Constitutional Borrowing (Oxford University Press 2021).
8. Dobner P ve Loughlin M, ‘Introduction’ in Petra Dobner ve Martin Loughlin (eds), The Twilight of Constitutionalism (Oxford University Press 2010) xi–2.

9. Drinóczi T, ‘The Emergence of Illiberal Constitutionalism and Illiberal Legality in Europe: What Is Happening and What Can the EU Do About It?’ (2021) (3) Groupe d’études géopolitiques 151–156.
10. Drinóczi T ve Bien-Kacala A, ‘Illiberal Constitutionalism and the European Rule of Law’ in Tímea Drinóczi ve Agnieszka Bien-Kacala (eds), Rule of Law, Common Values, and Illiberal Constitutionalism (Routledge 2021) 1–42.
11. Epstein RA, The Classical Liberal Constitution (Harvard University Press 2014).
12. González-Jácome J, ‘From Abusive Constitutionalism to a Multilayered Understanding of Constitutionalism: Lessons from Latin America’ (2017) 15 (2) I-CON 447–468.
13. Gören Z, Anayasa Hukuku (5. Baskı, Yetkin Yayınları 2020).
14. Gözler K, ‘16 Nisan’da Oylayacağımız Anayasa Değişikliği Bir “Suistimalci Anayasa Değişikliği” midir?’ (2017) https://www.anayasa.gen.tr/suistimalci.pdf 2–3, Erişim Tarihi 2 Eylül 2025.
15. Griffin SM, American Constitutionalism: From Theory to Politics (Princeton University Press 1996).
16. Halmai G, ‘Illiberal Constitutionalism? The Hungarian Constitution in a European Perspective’ https://me.eui.eu/gabor-halmai/wp-content/uploads/sites/385/2018/09/Illiberal_Constitutionalism_WHK17_Halmai-3.pdf 86, Erişim Tarihi 5 Eylül 2024.
17. IDEA, ‘What Is a Constitution? Principles and Concepts’ (August 2014) https://constitutionnet.org/sites/default/files/what_is_a_constitution_0.pdf Erişim Tarihi 31 Ağustos 2024.
18. Işıksel T, ‘Between Text and Context: Turkey’s Tradition of Authoritarian Constitutionalism’ (2013) 11 (3) I-CON 702–726.
19. Jacobsohn G ve Schor M, ‘Introduction: The Comparative Turn in Constitutional Theory’ in Gary Jacobsohn ve Miguel Schor (eds), Comparative Constitutional Theory (Edward Elgar Publishing 2018) 1–20.
20. Jeffords C ve Minkler L, ‘Do Constitutions Matter? The Effects of Constitutional Environmental Rights Provisions on Environmental Outcomes’ (2014) (16) University of Connecticut, Department of Economics Working Paper Series 1–60.
21. Kaboğlu İÖ, Anayasa Hukuku Dersleri (17. Baskı, Legal Yayıncılık 2023).
22. Kanadoğlu OK ve Duygun AM, Anayasa Hukukunun Genel Esasları (1. Baskı, On İki Levha Yayınları 2020).
23. Kelleher O, ‘Environmental Constitutionalism: A Transformative Legal Discourse?’ (2023) 7 (3) Irish Judicial Studies Journal 47–77.
24. Kimijima A, ‘Japan’s Constitutional Pacifism’ (2011) 23 (3) Ritsumeikan International Studies 43–61.
25. Kotzé LJ, ‘The Conceptual Contours of Environmental Constitutionalism’ (2015) 21 Widener Law Review 187–200.
26. Landau D, ‘Abusive Constitutionalism’ (2013) 47 University of California, Davis Law Review 189–260.
27. Loughlin M ve Walker N, ‘Introduction’ in Martin Loughlin ve Neil Walker (eds), The Paradox of Constitutionalism (Oxford University Press 2007) 1–8.
28. Lutz DS, Principles of Constitutional Design (Cambridge University Press 2006).
29. Maki JM, ‘The Constitution of Japan: Pacifism, Popular Sovereignty, and Fundamental Human Rights’ (1990) 53 (1) Law and Contemporary Problems 73–87.
30. Malcolm JL, ‘The Novelty of James Madison’s Constitutionalism’ in John Samples (ed), James Madison and the Future of Limited Government (CATO Institute 2002).
31. McCrudden C, ‘Dignity, Rights, and the Comparative Method’ in Rogers M Smith ve Richard R Beeman (eds), Modern Constitutions (University of Pennsylvania Press 2020) 111–132.
32. McDowell LG ve O’Neill J, ‘Introduction’ in Gary L McDowell ve Jonathan O’Neill (eds), America and Enlightenment Constitutionalism (Palgrave Macmillan 2006) 1–12.
33. McIlwain CH, Constitutionalism: Ancient and Modern (Cornell University Press 1947).
34. Nart İ, ‘Abusive Constitutionalism in the Heart of Europe: Cases of Hungary and Poland’ (2021) (3) Journal of International Relations and Political Science Studies 27–44.
35. Ortega RN, ‘Conceptualizing Authoritarian Constitutionalism’ (2016) (49) Verfassung und Recht in Übersee 339–367.
36. Özbudun E, Türk Anayasa Hukuku (23. Baskı, Yetkin Yayınları 2023).
37. Özgün-Çakar Y, ‘Otoriter Düzenleme Zihniyeti Olarak Anayasacılık’ in Modern Türkiye’de Siyasi Düşünce, C 9: Dönemler ve Zihniyetler (İletişim Yayınları 2009) 259–272.
38. Petrov J, ‘How to Detect Abusive Constitutional Practices’ (2024) European Constitutional Law Review 1–31.
39. Pozas-Loyo A, ‘Authoritarian Constitutionalism’ (2019) Annual American Political Science Association Meeting (September 2019) 1–23.
40. Rosenfeld M, ‘Illiberal Constitutionalism: Viable Alternative or Nemesis of the Modern Constitutional Ideal’ https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4741850 8–9, Erişim Tarihi 3 Eylül 2024.
41. Sartori G, ‘Constitutionalism: A Preliminary Discussion’ (1962) 56 (4) The American Political Science Review 853–864.
42. Schweber H, The Language of Liberal Constitutionalism (Cambridge University Press 2007).
43. Somek A, ‘Authoritarian Constitutionalism: Austrian Constitutional Doctrine 1933 to 1938 and Its Legacy’ in Christian Joerges ve Navraj Singh Ghaleigh (eds), Darker Legacies of Law in Europe (Hart Publishing 2003) 361–388.
44. Teziç E, Anayasa Hukuku (26. Baskı, Beta Yayınları 2023).
45. Tushnet M, ‘Authoritarian Constitutionalism: Some Conceptual Issues’ in Tom Ginsburg ve Alberto Simpser (eds), Constitutions in Authoritarian Regimes (Cambridge University Press 2014) 36–52.
46. — —, ‘Authoritarian Constitutionalism’ (2015) 100 (2) Cornell Law Review 391–462.
47. Versteeg M, ‘Popüler Olmayan Anayasacılık’, çev. Şafak Evran Topuzkanamış (2018) 20 (1) Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 125–197.
48. Yamamoto H, ‘Interpretation of the Pacifist Article of the Constitution by the Bureau of Cabinet Legislation: A New Source of Constitutional Law?’ (2017) 26 (1) Washington International Law Journal 99–125.
49. Yıldız A, ‘Anayasal Değişimin Suistimali ve Otoriterleşme: Anayasa Mahkemesi Üzerinden Bir Okuma’ (2025) 15 (2) İnsan ve Toplum Dergisi 81–109.
50. Young AL, ‘Constitutional Methodology and Brexit: Adopting a Model-Theoretic Approach’ in Dimitrios Kyritsis ve Stuart Lakin (eds), The Methodology of Constitutional Theory, vol 2 (Hart Publishing 2022) 71–102.
51. Yüzer Eltimur D, ‘Suistimalci Anayasacılık ve Uygulamaları: Macaristan ve Polonya Özelinde Değerlendirme’ (2024) 15 (57) Türkiye Adalet Akademisi Dergisi 1–44.