Selin Sayek Böke, Deputy Leader, Turkey's Republican People's Party HARDtalk

welcome to HARDtalk. In mid April, Turkish people voted will vote in a

referendum to change the Constitution and give the president

more power. Poll suggested as a tight race so the votes of Turkish

citizens living in Europe could help swing the result. But ministers have

been prevented from campaigning in some European countries, revoking a

major diplomatic row. My guess to make guest is the opposition leader,

Selin Sayek Boke. Born in New York she has enjoyed a meteoric rise in

the party after a return to the capital nearly 15 years ago. The CHP

as opposed to the referendum, claiming it will give President

Erdogan too much power. But do they have an alternative vision for

Turkey? Selin Sayek Boke, welcome. There are

over 3 million expat Turkish voters living in Europe, about 6.5% of

total voters. How far could they determine the result of the

referendum? They could ease of the change the referendum result by one

or two percentage points. Therefore they are critical in the end result

that we would get. And, when you see what has been going on with some

Turkish ministers being denied permission to campaign in some

European countries, the Netherlands, Germany... What do you think? Do you

support the government or do you support the European countries? I

think you are -- I think providing a full-fledged picture is necessary.

We have been struggling for years to find democracy in Turkey and we do

not speak of it lightly. We speak of democracy is going beyond borders

and being necessary for everybody and every geography. Therefore this

freedom of speech is not just necessary in Turkey, it is necessary

globally. Having said that, we find it unfortunate that this has become

a diplomatic row, as you say, rather than having diplomacy being an

integral part of the solution. Instead of actually creating a

solution through diplomacy, unfortunately we have absorbed an

escalation of internal politics playing here. When foreign policy

was instrumental eyes by local actors all parties involved into

making it a domestic argument at the end of the day. So, here there are

two issues, I think. One the level of international relations where it

is politics we absorb globally, putting facts in front of perception

is portent and putting democracy first is a vital. This has been an

international issue, unfortunately, that has been instrumental eyes into

domestic politics. This is where we are unhappy with what has been going

on because clearly what the MPs have done, what our ministers have done

is quite against Turkish law. And we have been adamant in speaking for

democracy and for rule of law. So, just to clarify, you do not believe

that Turkish ministers should have been trying to address rallies to

Turkish voters, expats living in Europe. You do not believe they

should have done that? That they should have tried to do that?

Turkish law clearly states, and this was the law that was brought into

line by the ruling party themselves where they said politicians cannot

go and do rallies are broad. There are two issues here, one is that as

a minister, if you go as a minister abroad the new or presenting 80

million people and not a political view. Unfortunately, these ministers

have not travelled in ministerial positions. They have travelled to

find support for a political view. This is against our domestic law.

Why then, did the former chairman of your party, why was he given

permission to make an anti- referendum speech by the German

authorities? He was going to do that and the government says that there

have been people who are pushing for a no vote allowed to campaign. The

government says it sounds like a double standard that do they have a

point? The content there, if it is not just for a political campaign

but a meeting with your voters, you are able to do that. But not in your

ministerial position, using your ministerial position facilities.

Therefore there was nothing illegal in our party meeting with voters. It

is the process and how it is being utilised. But it is not the fault of

the AK Party, the ruling party in Turkey. Therefore anybody who wants

to speak in favour of the referendum on their behalf is going to be

accused by you of abusing their position of power. Well, they could

go with their own party's power was rather than using the powers of the

states urges a state plane with the facilities supported by the state

itself. Therefore there is a fine line there which has to be walked.

But in terms of the diplomatic row, the ruling party has emerged

stronger from this row. The poll suggests that the two sides are

running neck and neck. 40% for each and 20% of voters are undecided. One

researcher has said we should not be angry with the Germans and the

Dutch, we should fight them a little. They contributed to the yes

vote by at least two points. So the row has benefited the ruling party.

Um, well, there are two things here. One is that on the ground when I

speak to the public I do not observe row actually having turned into a

significant increase or a change in the pattern of votes stop however,

it is quite disappointing to hear an MP from the ruling party claims

success out of an issue that hurts 80 million Turkish people they live

in Turkey and, beyond that, millions of Turkish expats who live abroad.

It is disappointing that such an issue has been made into a point of

votes in a referendum. How does it hurt the Turkish people? This whole

diplomatic row has actually contributed to the very far right

extreme political movement abroad which creates sentiments of other

writers say she. And it is this otherness, Turkish expats abroad

will be included in that group. Therefore their life will be more

difficult now. Beyond that, we have an issue that this relationship

between EU and Turkey is further strain. This has social

implications, political implications, economic implications.

Now, socially, it is the lives of the expats that I think of and the

political issues that we take to the EU as a political party of the

universal democratic values that it stands for and the standards that it

represents, any relationship that is strained on account of the domestic

political issue is suggestive that Turkey would be further away from

those universal standards that we care for deeply, democratically. The

third issue is that the EU was a huge economic party for Turkey. It

represents 47% of Turkey's X boards and it represents 40% of Turkish

imports and, beyond that bad, 80% of foreign direct investment in Turkey

comes from the EU countries. Therefore, clearly, relationships

that are strained just for a couple more votes in a domestic

referendum... Is leading... Who are you blaming for this? We have now

had the German Foreign Minister say on Saturday that today Turkey is

further away from becoming a member of the European Union than ever

before. You blame the state of affairs? We should take a longer

perspective here. Over a course, the relations between the EU and Turkey

by all parties involved in this negotiation have taken a myopic and

pragmatic pro- viewpoint. Instead of being concerned for democratic

values, unfortunately all parties, both at the EU and the ruling party

in Turkey have made use of the process for their own political

goals. This is still operational today. We believe that what we are

seeing in this diplomatic row with nothing different in essence on the

15 years that I just described. Having said that, all parties have a

part in the blame if we are looking for a blame in this game. However, I

would say that instead of looking for blame, let us look forward and

bring democratic values into Turkey. Either hand with the EU by

ourselves. Looking forward, one thing that may unravel if the EU-

Turkey migration deal whereby Turkey would stem the flow of refugees from

the Middle East through Turkish land into Europe and now we have had to

Turkish Foreign Minister, as will as the president saying that they are

re-evaluating his refugee policy, this refugee deal. Is that farming

that concerns you? Does it seem as if Turkey is moving away even more

from the European Union? Let me start by saying it is unfortunate

that indeed, the relationship between the EU and Turkey was

reduced to worry about the refugee crisis. This deal has to be a

separate issue than EU- Turkey membership negotiations. Clearly the

refugee crisis is not a Turkey crisis. It is an international

crisis. Therefore the solution should not be one that is linked to

this relationship but one where we have a true burden to share across

all countries that have been involved in the buildup to the

crisis as well is being exposed to the crisis itself. We have been

unhappy and from the very outset of this that the crisis has been

significantly linked to the EU Turkey relationship. It is also

unfortunate that a membership negotiation is linked to a human

crisis where people have been diminished into a negotiation

instrument. We speak of people who have had to flee their countries.

OK. So we look at the repercussions of the diplomatic row and I have

been trying to save that the government has been complaining of

double standards in its treatment of not only by ministers being denied

permission to actually address campaigns in Europe but also, for

example, we have had thousands and thousands of Turkish Kurds

demonstrating and attending rallies in Germany. We have also seen their

banners being held at supporting the PKK, the outlawed Kurdish separatist

party which is even, by EU measures, a terror group. And so the Turkish

government says it is clear it is a double standard. They have something

against us. When you look at facts like that, they have a point, don't

they? My then ask the following question. It is important to pose a

question in return. If we seek a double standards and we may as will

look internally and observe whether or not we have double standards in

Turkey. In the run-up to the referendum that we are a part of a

sturdy society, when I say we seek democratic values globally I don't

speak about lightly. Indeed, such double standards should never be

applied, especially as we speak of terrorist groups. However I have to,

as a Turkish politician who was under great pressure along with 80

million other people in Turkey during this process, I have to

underline the same double standards observed in Turkey and they are

implemented and opposed by the ruling party on any opposition on

any no vote currently in Turkey. Could I pick you up on that? The

president's spokesman said disputes what you are saying. He says the

opposition have been allowed to campaign freely and this is because

the President and the Prime Minister's rallies attract more

rallies and it looks like only as a campaign, that is not true. That is

a misperception. Another point, a prevention provincial AK Party

deputy was forced to resign after saying the they needed to prepare

for civil war if they did not get 53%. He was forced to resign by the

AK Party. This does not sound like a party that is trying to promote

divisive rhetoric. Lets speak with facts, not

perceptions. Those at the upper end of the administration, including our

president and our Prime Minister, have been yelling in meeting areas

that those who say no in Turkey are terrorists. This sentence itself

trickles down into society and creates physical pressure on people

who are actually campaigning for Ray no. When you hear those in the upper

administration call those of us who are saying no as terrorists, this

creates an environment on fair in itself. A single resignation out of

a party does not resolve the position. The language does not

change. For myself, I have avoided going to university campuses where I

was actually going to go into leadership and career services and

speak to youngsters, whereas MPs from the ruling party are on the

campaign speaking about the yes campaign across every campus on

Turkish territory. We have those who are campaigning for no being

actually, physically under pressure, in marketplace places when they are

distributing fliers about no, when they speak of no on university

campuses. We have students today arrested as they tweeted great no

campaign. Clearly this is pressure. I can only repeat what the

government is seen, that they dispute this. For sure. Looking at

the substance of the referendum, the aim is to give more power to the

President. The office of one minister would we abolished, but the

2-term limit would be retained. The government says the president

becomes head of an executive branch that can issue decrees, but there is

going to be strong parliamentary oversight. It will control the

budget pursestrings, the Constitutional Court can look at any

kind of presidential executive order. So they say there are checks

and balances within the proposal is that they are making. Unfortunately,

these do not reflect the reality and the truth about what is being

proposed. Clearly the separation of powers are actually fully in road

under the Constitutional amendment that is being proposed. -- fully

eroded. There will be no checks and balances that remain. The three

branches are brought under the control of a single commander in

what is being proposed. It doesn't matter who that commander is going

to be. It is not about our current president, where we are against this

constitutional proposal that is on the table. It is about the content.

Think of the following. This president, who is going to be

elected if this constitutional change happens, will have, through

decrees, a full power of legislation. Therefore the

legislative branch is delegated into the presidential office. When it

comes to the judiciary, the two critical courts that we have, the

Constitutional Court and the upper court administration, for both of

these, the majority of those who will be appointed into the

Constitutional Court and the upper court administration will be a lack

did and appointed by the President himself, and the President will hold

full power over executive powers, because the President, he or she,

will be able to appoint the ministerial body. They will not be

elected through the Parliament itself. Therefore, on the facade, we

will have a Parliament. You could easily visit the Parliament. But

when it comes to de facto, we will not have a Parliament, will have a

single autocratic regime. But you are going to have a separation

between the executive and the legislative branches. A presidential

veto or a presidential decree can be overturned by simple majority in the

Parliament, and if you take, for example, the US system at the

moment, offer a presidential veto in the US to be overcome, you would

need a two thirds majority in both houses of Congress. So AKP are

saying that, arguably, in this instance, they have stronger checks

then you would have in the American system. Look, what we are going to

be exposed to, if this constitutional change happens, is

the following. We will have elections where the President will

be elected at the same time when MPs are being elected. And indeed, one

of the change we are observing in this constitutional changes that the

President will run as the chair of a political party. Therefore we are

going to have a political climate where the election of the president

is going to be at the same time for the party of that resident itself.

-- president. And the MP list will be listed by the President, because

we do not have primaries. Indeed, the MP list is drafted by the

chairman of any political party. This is to suggest that it is

impossible to factually expect that the President is going to be

different than the majority party in the Parliament. Therefore, de facto,

unfortunately, there will be no checks and balances in the system.

So you are opposing it, obviously. The head of the Constitutional Court

in Parliament says the CHP, your party, are opposing the change to

protect their own interests, because when you look at the figures, you

know that if you feel that a candidate in a presidential election

you have no chance of winning. If you look at what happened in

November 2015, your party won 25% of the vote, AKP won 49% of the vote.

If you look at approval ratings, the head of your party has approval

ratings of 26% and President Erdogan has approval ratings of 50%. They

are far ahead of you in terms of the popularity stakes. Clearly Arab

rejection is not about our future. It is about Turkey's future. --

clearly our objection. We object to the fact that Turkey will lose its

democratic values, it will loose alternate voices being heard at the

same time, and indeed, having democracy alive in our Parliament.

Therefore we are not concerned that we are not going to be in power.

Indeed, there will be more opportunity for us if we are

thinking of a 2-party system to be in power in this new proposed

system. Rather, we care to have a full representation. This is why,

two weeks ago, we actually offered a package to the Parliaments where we

said, let's change certain laws in Turkey, rather than the

constitution, and that strengthened the parliamentary representation in

Turkey, where each and every one of us and each and every vote is

represented in the Parliament. Therefore, we do not care if we are

strong or not. Clearly we have come as a political party, the wish to be

the leading party. But our concern is not about us, it is about Turkey.

Having said that, there you are, Turkey's oldest political party,

established by the founder, Ataturk. But you have not let a majority

government since 1950 and the AKP party, and you come on the scene,

relatively, is riding high with the electorate because you cannot go

beyond that 25% of voters to back you. So briefly, how can you appeal

to those more socially conservative people in Turkey who are proud of

their Islamic heritage? Because you are so sick of the rest. --

secularist. Let me state the following. The problem in per -- in

Turkey in the past few decades, in the past 15 years, is that politics

has become extremely identity driven. You have political parties

representing identities and polarising through these identities.

This is extremely risky in countries such as Turkey, that have a

heterogeneous population with differences in their beliefs, their

ways of life, their ethnicity is. Therefore we need to have a new

political language that looks beyond this and is blind to identity, but

speaks of politics when it comes to content and touches upon your life.

We have indeed, in the past two years, changed our language

significantly, and the content of issues we speak of. We speak of

minimum wage. Minimum wage touches upon millions. It is not about your

identity. I was just saying, how can you have mass appeal to people who

have tried in that Islamist roots, as well as hanging onto your

secularist tradition. Finally, an independent writer and analyst has

said that your party, the CHP, is finally getting religion, a

political party that does not compare in this fact is doomed to be

marginalised. The irony is, your party can only do better against the

AKP by becoming more like them. I have to strongly disagree with that.

This is why our mentioned the minimum wage package. We are

speaking of the economic policy framework. If we are going to

overcome this identity driven politics, through secularism, we

should be able to give the message that this protects everybody's

religious beliefs, rather than alleviating religion from the pop

elation. Here we have taken leaps and bounds in Turkey. However this

does not mean that we do not have a political ground to speak of, right?

Economic policy is crosscutting. Regardless of what you believe in,

regardless of your ethnicity, indeed, your social issues and your

economic issues bring you around the same table. It is blind to your

identity. This is what our politics as to speak of without denying that

what makes us does indeed include what we believe in, does include our

ethnicity. But the government and politics has to be blind to this.

Selin Sayek Boke, in Ankara, thank you for coming on HARDtalk. A great

pleasure. For England and Wales,

some heavy rain over The forecast is

complicated because this band of rain, as soon as it moves

in, is going to stop moving, as this low pressure slips

southwards towards Spain.