Constitutional Amendment Procedures and Democratic Oversight

Aydın Tiryaki (2025)

ABSTRACT

Historical experience has demonstrated that rapid, “packaged” constitutional amendments often exacerbate social polarization and serve as instruments of imposition for transient political majorities. This paper proposes a new model for constitutional reform that de-escalates political urgency and prioritizes social consensus. The model is built upon four pillars: article-by-article modular voting, a mandatory bridge across two distinct election cycles, a “two-out-of-three” dynamic approval requirement, and a “suspended validity” mechanism that allows for practical experimentation and restorative justice.

1. THE IMMUTABLE CORE AND PHYSICAL INTEGRITY

The legitimacy of the reform process rests on two foundational principles that safeguard the essence of the state and the purity of the voters’ will:

• Entrenched Clauses: The fundamental characteristics and the founding philosophy of the State (the first four articles of the Constitution) remain strictly outside the scope of this procedure; their amendment cannot be proposed.
• Physical Ballot Integrity: Due to justified societal distrust in digital systems and the risks of cyber intervention, all constitutional votes must be conducted via physical ballots, official seals, and transparent ballot boxes. Physical verification is prioritized over technological speed to ensure the “sovereignty of the ballot.”

2. QUANTITATIVE LIMITS AND FOCUSED REFORM

To prevent “referendum fatigue” and ensure each amendment is scrutinized with due diligence, strict quantitative limits are imposed:

• Annual Frequency: A maximum of two (2) referendums may be held within a single calendar year.
• Article Limit: No more than five (5) articles may be submitted for public approval in a single referendum.
• Modular Voting: The “packaged voting” (logrolling) method is strictly prohibited. Each article must be presented in a separate section of the ballot with its own independent YES / NO options.

3. THE DOUBLE ELECTION CYCLE BARRIER

To ensure that a constitutional change represents a “national settlement” rather than a temporary partisan victory, the process is tied to the renewal of the national will:

• Mandatory Political Bridge: The first and second stages of the vote cannot take place within the same parliamentary term. The process must span at least two different general election cycles.
• Temporal Minimum: A “cooling-off” period of two (2) years between votes is a mandatory minimum. While election schedules may extend this duration, it can never be shortened.

4. THE DYNAMIC APPROVAL MATRIX AND “SUSPENDED VALIDITY”

The model determines the legal status of an amendment based on a three-stage voting cycle:

A. Implementation and Trial Period:

• For an amendment to enter “suspended validity” (interim implementation), it must receive at least one YES vote.
• Rejected in 1st Vote: The amendment does not enter into force, but the right to a 2nd vote is reserved.
• Approved in 1st Vote: The amendment enters into force as a “suspended” provision and is subjected to social and legal experimentation.
• Stability of the Trial: An amendment approved in the 1st stage remains in “suspended validity” even if it is rejected in the 2nd stage, provided it has not yet failed the 2/3 overall requirement.

B. The “Two-Out-of-Three” (2/3) Rule:

• An amendment becomes a permanent constitutional provision only if it is approved in at least two out of the three voting stages.
• Consecutive Rejection: If an amendment is rejected in any two consecutive voting stages (1-2 or 2-3), the process is immediately terminated.

5. RESTORATIVE JUSTICE AND THE STABILITY LOCK

• State Liability: If a “suspended” amendment fails to meet the 2/3 requirement and is eventually discarded, the system reverts to the original constitutional provision. Any citizen grievances or damages incurred during the interim implementation are fully compensated by the State.
• Ten-Year Entrenchment: Once an amendment is finalized through the 2/3 approval process, it cannot be subject to further amendment for a period of ten (10) years to ensure institutional stability.

CONCLUSION

This model transforms the constitution from a partisan instrument of imposition into a “National Social Contract” refined by time, experience, and patience. By replacing “rapid change” with “verified consensus,” it eliminates the risks of political opportunism through modular transparency, the double election barrier, and state liability. True sovereignty is found not in the speed of the vote, but in the enduring continuity of the consensus.

Aydın Tiryaki
Ankara, December 23, 2025

---

FUNDAMENTAL VALUES AND INSTITUTIONAL BENEFITS OF THE MODEL

The proposed model transcends being a mere procedural framework; it establishes a new constitutional culture based on the following core values:

• The Manifestation of True Sovereign Will: By abolishing “package deal” tactics, the model ensures that each constitutional amendment is judged solely on its own merits. This prevents the public’s will from being held hostage by strategic bundling, ensuring that every “Yes” or “No” reflects a conscious and specific choice.
• Ensuring State Continuity: The absolute entrenchment of the first four articles serves as an unbreakable shield for the founding DNA of the State. This ensures that while the legal system evolves with the times, the foundational pillars remains unshakable.
• Cultivating Political Maturity and Consensus: By mandating that the process spans at least two separate election cycles, the model forces political actors to look beyond short-term partisan interests. It necessitates a supra-partisan consensus, as no single administration can complete the amendment process within its own term.
• Enhanced Legal Accountability (The “Precautionary” State): The “suspended validity” phase introduces a live laboratory for constitutional testing. By holding the State financially and legally liable for any damages incurred during this trial period, the model incentivizes the legislature to produce high-quality, just, and meticulously drafted legal texts.
• Long-Term Institutional Stability: The ten-year “lock-in” period puts an end to the culture of “trial-and-error” constitutionalism. It provides the necessary breathing room for society to internalize new norms, transforming the Constitution into a reliable anchor rather than a volatile political instrument.

---

A Note on Methods and Tools: The essence, observations, and solutions of this text bear the author’s signature; AI accompanied the process as an assistant providing linguistic structure and writing support. (This English text was drafted and refined with the assistance of AI as a writing partner.)