ABSTRACT
Interpreting the constitution within constitutional boundaries according to contemporary conditions is a result of the living constitution approach. In addition, changing political and social conditions may necessitate constitutional amendments or even a new constitution. However, just as with other institutions, detaching constitutional interpretation or constitutional amendments from their context raises discussions within the framework of constitutionality. It is important for any constitutional change to remain within liberal boundaries, as well as within the formal and substantive limits of constitutional amendments. In other words, as long as the change arising from interpretation remains within liberal boundaries, in addition to changes made through the formal amendment procedure, it can be considered constitutional. Otherwise, the entire process of constitutional change serves authoritarianism. The use of constitutional change as a method can lead to the erosion of checks and balances in favor of the executive branch, the corruption of the separation of powers, the weakening of judicial independence-in short, the degeneration of the fundamental institutions that support liberal constitutional democracy. Modern leaders’ tendencies toward authoritarianism, combined with their quest for legitimacy, result in this degeneration through manipulation of the institutions of liberal constitutionalism. In Türkiye, the Constitutional Court exercises its function of checks and balances, thereby ensuring the limitation of governmental authority and the protection of fundamental freedoms. The Constitutional Court’s rulings in favor of freedom represent a rights-based constitutional transformation. The implementation of the Constitutional Court’s decisions is a fundamental aspect of the rule of law principle. Failure to comply with the Constitutional Court’s rulings not only hinders constitutional transformation toward freedom but also fosters authoritarianism by causing erosion in the rule of law principle.