Good Governance, Democracy and Rule of Law in Turkey - Ersin Kalaycioglu

Good Governance, Good Governance, Democracy and Rule of Democracy and Rule of

Law in TurkeyLaw in Turkey

Ersin KalaycıoğluSabancı Üniversitesi,

Science Academy, Turkey

Good Governance: DefinitionGood Governance: Definition “Good governance promotes equity (hakkaniyet), participation

(katılma), pluralism (çoğulculuk), transparency (saydamlık), accountability (hesap verilebilirlik) and the rule of law (hukukun üstünlüğü), in a manner that is effective, efficient and enduring. In translating these principles into practice, we see the holding of free, fair and frequent elections, representative legislatures that make laws and provides oversight, and an independent judiciary to interpret those laws. ” (UN, Global Issues: Governance Report 2012: (https://www.un.org/en/globalissues/governance): 1).

Rule of law is defined by the UN Secretary – General as “a principle of governance in which all persons, institutions and entities, public and private, including the State itself are accountable to laws that are publicly promulgated, equally enforces and independently adjudicated, and which are consistent with international human rights norms and standards.” (http://issuu.com/undp/docs/issue_brief_-_rule_of_law_and_the_post-2015_develop) .

In the Declaration of the 2012 High Level Meeting on the Rule of Law, UN General Assembly stated that “all persons, institutions and entities, public and private, including the State itself are accountable to just (adil), fair (hakça), and equitable (yansız) laws and are entitled without discrimination to equal protection of the law.” (http://issuu.com/undp/docs/issue_brief_-_rule_of_law_and_the_post-2015_develop)

Turkish Performance at ECHR 1959 - 2008

ECHR Judgments

1959-1998

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Judgments 34 19 39 229 105 123 171 290 334 331 264

Applicationsinadmissible or struck out

538 153 394 385 1638 1636 1818 1366 3169 1573 1475

Source: European Court of Human Rights (AIHM), Country Statistics, (1 January 2009): page 136. (2).

Moral of the Story: Turkish Judge Işıl Karakaş argued that there was “a drastic (unbelievable) increase in the Turkish applications to the ECHR in 2011. Last year there were 6000 – 6500 applications, and this year applications have already reached 9000.” She further argued that there are severe problems with the application of the habeas corpus principle by the Turkish courts. (NTV interview, at http://www.imc-tv.com/haber-aihme-basvurularda-yuzde-50-artis-1023.html).

Turkey and the European Court of Human Rights (2010 – 2013) Applications pending before the ECHR on 23/01/2013 (TURKEY)* Total pending Applications 18774 Applications pending before a judicial formation: 16798 Single Judge 3296 Committee (3 Judges) 3976 Chamber (7 Judges) 9525 Grand Chamber (17 Judges) 1 *including applications for which completed application forms have not yet been received.

Applications Processed in 2010 2011 2012 Applications allocated to a judicial formation 5800 8662 9092

Communicated to the Government 1308 458 422

Applications decided 3789 7755 8048

Declared inadmissible or struck out (Single Judge)

2421 6489 7273

Declared inadmissible or struck out (Committee)

576 247 216

Declared inadmissible or struck out (Chamber) 290 790 425

Decided by judgment 502 229 134

Interim measures 55 73 66 Granted 7 3 2 Refused 48 70 64 Source: ECHR Country Profile (Turkey). Applications High case-count States (more than 3,000 applications pending before a judicial formation, ECHR, 2012)

Russia 28600 22,3% Turkey 16900 13,2% Italy 14200 11,1% Ukraine 10450 8,2% Serbia 10050 7,8% Romania 8700 6,8% Bulgaria 3850 3,0% United Kingdom 3300 2,6% Poland 3100 2,4% Republic of Moldova 3250 2,5% Remaining 37 States 25700 20,1% Total number of pending applications: 128,100

Source: ECHR Statistical Analysis.

Rule of Law (Turkey versus the World 2011)

0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

Ltd.

Gov

t. Pow

ers

Absen

ce C

orru

ption

Order

and

Sec

urity

Funda

men

tal R

ights

Open

Gover

nmen

t

Effect.

Reg

ul. E

nfor

cem

ent

Acces

s to

Civil J

ustic

e

Effecti

ve C

rimina

l Jus

tice

Type of Rule of Law Measure

Fac

tor

Sco

re

Turkey

World

Rule of Law and Democracy Rule of Law and Democracy

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011/12

Ra

nk

in S

core

an

d p

er c

en

t

Years

Freedom of the Press ( Reporters without Borders, Turkey in the World; 2002 -2011)

Rank

Percent

Good Governance: TIGood Governance: TI

Turkey in Transparency International Indeces (2011 - 2012):

Judicial Independence Index (2012): Rank: 88 / 142; score 3,3 / 7.

Rule of Law Index (2010) Rank: 58%, score: 0,104.

Freedom of the Press Index (2011 – 12) Rank: 146 / 179, Score: 70.

Voice and Accountability Index (2010) Rank: 43%, Score: -0.159.

Corruption Perception Index (2012): Rank: 54/176; Score: 0,49.

Bribe Payers Index (2011): Rank: 19/28, Score: 7,5 / 10.

Control of Corruption (2012): Rank: 56%, Score: 0.009. (Source: http://www.transparency.org/country#TUR_DataResearch_SurveysIndices.)

Category / COUNTRY Rank Overall ScoreElectoral Process

and PluralismFunctioning of Government

Political participation Political Culture Civil Liberties

FULL DEMOCRACYNorway 1 9,93 10 9,64 10 10 10Sweden 2 9,73 9,58 9,64 9,44 10 10

U.S.A 21 8,11 9,17 7,5 7,22 8,13 8,53Japan 23 8,08 9,17 8,21 6,11 7,5 9,41

Belgium 24 8,05 9,58 8,21 5,56 7,5 9,41Spain 25 8,02 9,58 7,5 6,11 7,5 9,41

FLAWED DEMOCRACIES

Cape Verde 26 7,92 9,17 7,86 7,22 6,25 9,12Portugal 26 7,92 9,58 6,43 6,67 7,5 9,41Fransa 26 7,88 9,58 7,14 6,67 7,5 8,53Italya 32 7,74 9,58 6,43 6,67 7,5 8,53India 38 7,52 9,58 7,5 6,11 5 9,41

Bulgaria 54 6,72 9,17 5,71 6,11 4,38 8,24

HYBRIDUkraine 80 5,91 7,92 4,64 5,56 4,38 7,06

Bangladesh 84 5,86 7,42 5,43 5 4,38 7,06Bolivia 85 5,84 7 5 6,11 3,75 7,35

TURKEY 88 5,76 7,6 7,92 6,79 5 4,12Tunusia 90 5,67 5,75 5 6,67 6,25 4,71Albania 90 5,67 7 4 5 5 7,35Georgia 93 5,53 8,25 3,21 5 5 6,18

Egypt 109 4,56 3,42 4,64 5 5,63 4,12Source: The Economist Intelligence Unit, Democracy Index 2012Performance over the years

2012 2011 2010 2008 2006Turkey 5,76 5,73 5,73 5,69 5,7

Democratic GovernanceDemocratic Governance1. Elections: Fair and Free (more or less in

effect), 2. Inclusive Suffrage (In Effect, except for 10%

national threshold),3. The right to run for office (In Effect with

some restrictions),4. Freedom of Expression (Restricted),5. Freedom of the Press / Media and Alternative

Sources of Information (Restricted),6. Freedom of Association (Association

Autonomy) (Restricted for the Opponents),7. Civil – Military Relations, Civilian control of

the Military (In Effect). Moral of the Story: Delegative Democracy /

Illiberal Democracy versus the Hybrid Regime.