Opposition Pushes for Elected Charter Drafting Committee
A prominent opposition figure is intensifying pressure on the government regarding the process for drafting a new constitution, advocating for an assembly directly elected by the public to spearhead the initiative.
Key Stance on Public Election
The opposition party’s core argument centers on the belief that a constitution should be authored by a constitution drafting assembly (CDA) whose members are chosen solely by the electorate. This stance directly challenges a previous Constitutional Court ruling, identified as No. 18/2025, which suggested that parliament cannot allow the public to directly elect the drafters.
Seeking Clarification and Interpretation
In response to the court’s ruling, a joint inquiry was initiated by the Senate committee on political development and the House committee on court affairs, seeking further clarification from the president of the Constitutional Court. The president reportedly explained that while the public can directly elect members of a CDA, the ruling specifically prohibited the direct election of the technical drafting committee responsible for the actual writing of the charter. Under this interpretation, an elected CDA could then appoint a technical drafting committee and subsequently approve the finalized document.
Addressing Concerns on Judicial Interpretation
Acknowledging potential criticism that this interpretation might reflect only the personal views of the judges present during the ruling, it was emphasized that the president conveyed the collective understanding of all Constitutional Court judges prior to the ruling’s issuance on September 10th of the previous year. This was presented not as an individual opinion, but as a unified judicial perspective.
Next Steps and Public Support
The proposed next steps involve vigorous advocacy for an elected CDA and providing support for a citizens’ draft proposal. This citizen-led initiative has already garnered over 23,000 signatures, moving closer to the 50,000 required for submission to parliament.
Government Response and Counterarguments
Responding to these developments, a Member of Parliament from the BJT party maintained that the consultation with the court president offered guidance rather than a legally binding directive. The MP denied any misrepresentation of the court’s position and accused opposition leaders of framing the discussion as a definitive legal conclusion.
Furthermore, the MP drew parallels to past instances where assumptions regarding referendum numbers proved inaccurate. He urged those promoting the current interpretations to accept accountability for potentially misleading the public.
