The Meaning and Significance of the Grand National Assembly According to the Turkish Constitution of 1921

Oğuzhan Bekir Keskin

Kocaeli University

The Turkish War of Liberation (1919-1922) is unique in several senses. Probably the most important aspect of it is that it was fought under a constitutional government that was formed for that very purpose. The formation of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey (GNAT) in 1920 and the Constitution’s enactment in 1921 are the landmarks of this struggle. 

The Ottoman experiment with constitutionalism was one fraught with difficulties. The first Constitution was promulgated in 1876, and it was the brainchild of a handful of Western-minded bureaucratic elites. There was no such demand from the public at large nor the consciousness necessary for such an enterprise.  

The first constitutional period was short-lived. The elected chamber of the legislative assembly created under the 1876 Constitution was only renewed by the Sultan after three months, and this renewed Chamber was prorogued indefinitely after two months. The genuine work of the Chamber was not to the Sultan’s liking. Thus, the country was ruled as a de facto autocracy even though the Constitution was not abolished. It took thirty years before the second constitutional period started in 1908. Although this time around there was public support for the constitutional government, the period was fraught with internal power struggles and constant warfare with external powers. The devastating loss of World War I signified the end of Ottoman constitutionalism. Those in power fled the country, and the new Sultan tried to fill the power vacuum. 

Yet, he lacked the necessary capabilities as a leader. Starting in late 1918, people began to hold local congresses in various parts of Anatolia. In defiance of the defeatist and collaborationist Sultan, these congresses became venues for constitutional ideals such as national sovereignty and self-determination. While the concept of national sovereignty had been in incidental use during the second constitutional period, it became the driving force of the resistance. Thus, the War of Liberation was indeed a grassroots movement. Mustafa Kemal (Atatürk) was not its initiator, but he united the movement and led it to victory. And he did so with a constitutional state of mind. 

Mustafa Kemal moved to Anatolia in an official capacity, but with his own agenda. He oversaw a national congress that reiterated the principles mentioned above, rejecting any foreign mandate over the country once-and-for-all. As support for the “National Forces” (Kuva-yı Milliye) grew, the “Istanbul government” initiated backdoor diplomacy with it and accepted the demand for the reinstatement of the Parliament, but not in Anatolia as Mustafa Kemal wanted. After general elections were held, Parliament convened in the Ottoman capital and passed a resolution that has come to be known as “the National Oath” (Misak-ı Millî). At that point, the British, fearing nationalist sentiment would take hold in the capital, formally occupied İstanbul and arrested several nationalist members of the Parliament. Parliament concluded it could no longer perform its duties and prorogued itself, and afterwards, the Sultan dissolved it altogether. The conclusion of this process led to a new beginning, the establishment of the GNAT in a once unimportant town in the middle of Anatolia, Ankara.  

The foundation of the GNAT is paradoxical. On the one hand, it is a continuation – a direct successor of the last Ottoman Parliament. Even though new popular elections were held, formerly elected members of the Ottoman Parliament were also accepted as members of the GNAT. On the other hand, it was a breakthrough. The name says it all: it is Grand – meaning that there is no power above or equal to it; it is National – unlike its predecessor, the Ottoman Parliament; and it includes the name “Turkey” – although the West used this name to designate the Ottoman State, the Ottomans did not; the inclusion of the name “Turkey” implies something different, something new. As for the remaining component of the name, Assembly, even though it is a generic term for a legislative body, it meant much more in the context of the War of Liberation. The GNAT was not a parliament per se or only that. Let me explain why. 

First of all, the establishment of the GNAT marks the institutionalization, or more correctly constitutionalization, of the will of the people and national sovereignty – the calls for which had gained momentum since the local congresses of 1918. As such, the GNAT is the embodiment of the nation – this idea was laid down in Article 1 of the 1921 Constitution. At this moment in history, the GNAT was a politicizing and democratizing force. True, this shift began in 1908-9; the organizers of the liberation movement would not have been successful without the experiments dating from the 1908 demonstrations in Ottoman Macedonia to the 1919 Sultanahmet demonstration against the occupation of İzmir. Yet, legally speaking, it is the first formal-institutional event (1920) and the first document (1921) that took the sovereignty away from the person of the monarch and recognized the nation as the sovereign. It holds in practice as well. Ironically, it is probably the most democratic National Assembly in Turkish history. All sorts of identities (except for women and workers – only one worker was a member) and ideologies (from communists to Islamists to revolutionary nationalists) were present, and all were active. Mustafa Kemal was the leader, but he had no hegemony over the Assembly and was constantly challenged. Even in 1923, after the War of Liberation was won, the GNAT rejected many provisions of the new draft constitution regarding presidential powers. These proposed presidential powers were generic to the classical parliamentary government system but rejected by the GNAT in the name of its supremacy as the sole representative of the nation. Thus, both legally and practically, the GNAT was the agent of the people/nation. 

In this extraordinary time, the main idea behind the GNAT formation was to institutionalize the will of the people and render it an organized force. Thus, the purpose of the 1921 Constitution was not to establish a parliamentary regime (or any other, particular, governance structure) but to ensure the people/nation had agency in its liberation struggle. In this context, it rejected the separation of powers doctrine and vested in itself legislative, executive and – to an extent – judicial powers (Article 2). 

As it was the embodiment and sole agent of the nation/people, it was regarded as being in session at all times. No power could dissolve the Assembly. When such a provision was proposed in 1923, a member of the Assembly objected on the grounds that even God could not hold such a power, and thus, it was rejected.  

The newly formed army was not named the Revolutionary or Republican Army, but the GNAT Army. The GNAT itself held the title of gazi (“war veteran”). The executive body, too, was called the government of GNAT (Article 3) – not a name by which any other government after the proclamation of the Republic in 1923 has ever been given. The ministers were called vekil (“deputy”), and they were, technically speaking, not deputies of the people but the Assembly. As the GNAT also held executive power, the ministers, as agents of the Assembly, worked directly on its behalf, and were elected, directed, and held accountable by it; it could amend or annul their decisions (Article 8). As such, several ministers were deposed or had to resign under pressure from the GNAT. There was not an office of the head of state. Although the Council of Ministers elected one of its members as the head of the government, the president of the GNAT was recognized as the natural head of the government as well (Article 9). 

It is widely accepted that a head of state was not formally designated to avoid criticism from those who were not ready for a complete breakaway and wanted to retain a constitutional monarchy. Indeed, the GNAT kept saying that it sought to rescue the Sultan and the – existing – State from its shackles – this is true. It is also true that it did that and then abolished the former and dissolved the latter. It had excellent reasons to behave this way towards a collaborationist entity that constantly undermined the struggle and dared to share in the victory afterwards. 

The same goes for the so-called “double-Constitution period”. The term is employed to argue that certain provisions of the 1876 Ottoman Constitution, which did not contradict the 1921 Constitution, remained in force. Nevertheless, this argument does not live up to scrutiny. Even though it is true that only the 1924 Constitution explicitly abolished the 1876 Constitution, the silence of the 1921 Constitution on this matter cannot be taken as the recognition of a symbiosis. The 1921 Constitution was the product of a revolutionary era and had different priorities, as explained above. Consequently, it did not contain provisions concerning the judiciary or fundamental rights. On the other hand, the 1876 Constitution (as amended in 1909), especially its bill of rights, became an example of the liberal constitutionalism of its day. So, on its own volition, the GNAT decided that specific provisions of the 1876 Constitution, which were not in contradiction to its republican, nationalist, and popular characteristics, could apply. This means that there is a clear hierarchy between the 1921 Constitution and the non-contradictory provisions of the 1876 Constitution. 

All in all, the GNAT was a “constituent assembly” in the fullest sense of the term. It not only constituted the new law of the land but also established it. Its main drive was the legitimization of the liberation effort. Understandably, this effort was bifrontal. By rendering itself the embodiment and agent of the people/nation, the GNAT rejected both foreign invading and domestic monarchical powers. In this sense, it constituted the Republic as well – even before its official proclamation two years later. 

Thus, the GNAT was not – only – a legislative body. It was the constitutional body. It was the legislator, executor and guardian of the Constitution, the product of a national revolution, a “double struggle”. Hence, in this historic moment, the supremacy of the Assembly was indeed a progressive development, as it relocated the vesting of sovereignty from one person (monarch) to the nation. The GNAT gave its people an institutional voice, its government and its army fought an independence war, and its constitution regulated these efforts. Bestowing supremacy on the Assembly, in this context, served the purposes of democratizing politics and legitimizing “the new law of the land”. And in all its plurality, it did right vis-à-vis these aims. What came after is a different story. 

Oğuzhan Bekir Keskin is a research assistant at Kocaeli University, Faculty of Law. 

Suggested Citation: Oğuzhan Bekir Keskin, ‘The Meaning and Significance of the Grand National Assembly According to the Turkish Constitution of 1921’ IACL-AIDC Blog (18 March 2021) https://blog-iacl-aidc.org/centenary-of-the-turkish-constitution/2021/3/18/meaning-and-significance-of-the-grand-national-assembly-according-to-the-turkish-constitution-of-1921