Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Working Paper (17)
- Article (6)
- Part of a Book (6)
- Contribution to a Periodical (6)
- Book (2)
Keywords
- Anti-discrimination in Turkey (4)
- Turkey (3)
- EU-Turkey refugee deal (2)
- Government policies on internal displacement (2)
- Turkey-EU relations (2)
- Constitutional protection of minorities in Turkey (1)
- Democracy in Turkey (1)
- Democratization and EU reforms in Turkey (1)
- ECtHR Jurisprudence on Minorities in Turkey (1)
- European Court of Human Rights (1)
The results of the June 7 general elections prompted many to wonder whether a new democratic era had begun in Turkey. The historic results allowed ushered a pro-Kurdish political party into Parliament for the first time and brought an end to the 13 years of single-party government of the Justice and Development Party. But the result did not in reality give much cause for optimism since the four political parties in Parliament failed to form a coalition, enabling President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan to call another election for November 1, 2015. This contribution argues that by virtue of its regular and free elections, representative institutions and competitive political parties, Turkey has for too long been mislabelled as a democracy despite its constitutional and legal authoritarianism. Whatever the outcome of the repeat elections, Turkey will remain in the “‘grey zone’ between open autocracy and liberal democracy” if it continues without structural change.
The results of June 7 general elections drastically changed the course of politics in Turkey. AKP’s 13 years of single-party rule has come to an end, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s ambitions to change the country’s regime for a presidential system have failed and Turkey is facing a coalition government for the first time in nearly fifteen years. As for the near future, there remain significant uncertainties. The clock for the maximum 45-days period allowed for the formation of a government will start ticking as soon as the Parliament elects its new President during the last week of June. For the sake of democracy, societal peace and stability, the ideal outcome would be a government formed by the AKP and the CHP. The prospects of such a grand coalition, however, depend largely on the democratic maturity of the political leaders on all fronts. In light of Turkey’s political history and culture, that remains a big if…
The report, drafted for the European Network of Legal Experts in the non-discrimination field (on the grounds of race or ethnic origin, age, disability, religion or belief and sexual orientation), is part of a study into measures to combat discrimination in the EU Member States and candidate countries, funded by the European Community Programme for Employment and Social Solidarity – PROGRESS (2007-2013). The report provides an overview of Turkey's implementation of the EU anti-discrimination Directives up to 1 January 2014 and follows up on earlier reports drafted by the author for the same project.
The report, drafted for the European Network of Legal Experts in the non-discrimination field (on the grounds of race or ethnic origin, age, disability, religion or belief and sexual orientation), is part of a study into measures to combat discrimination in the EU Member States and candidate countries, funded by the European Community Programme for Employment and Social Solidarity – PROGRESS. The report provides an overview of Turkey's implementation of the EU anti-discrimination Directives up to 1 January 2013 and precedes and follows earlier reports drafted by the author for the same project.
The report was drafted for the European Network of Legal Experts in the non-discrimination field (on the grounds of race or ethnic origin, age, disability, religion or belief and sexual orientation)and produced as part of a study into measures to combat discrimination in the EU Member States and candidate countries, funded by the European Community Programme for Employment and Social Solidarity – PROGRESS. The report provides an overview of the state of transposition and implementation of the EU anti-discrimination Directives in each country up to 1 January 2012 and precedes other annual reports by the same author.
The report aims to analyze and explain the actors and processes of media policy
making in Turkey; the substance and implementation of such policies; the legal framework
governing media content; the ownership structure of the media; the working conditions of
journalists; and the emerging social efforts to combat discrimination and hate speech in the
media. IT argues that the prospects for media independence and freedom in Turkey appear
extremely weak. In a sector driven by corporate interests, nepotism and clientelist relations,
the media owners do not have the incentive to provide truthful and critical news coverage.
The historical weakness of trade unions in Turkey, the high level of unemployment among
journalists, the high turnover rate in the sector and the deep divisions among journalists due
to ideological differences make it very difficult for media employees to engage in a unified
struggle against their employers. The lack of a strong pro-democracy social movement, the
ideological conservatism of the judiciary, the institutional weakness of the parliament and the
lack of democracy within political parties render the government –and future governments–
too powerful vis-à-vis the society and the media. On the other hand, the inability and the
unwillingness of the media to regulate itself, as well as the authoritarian and punitive nature
of state regulation, has mobilized the civil society to monitor the media’s compliance with
universal principles and professional ethical codes and to combat discrimination and hate
speech in the media.
This report is an attempt to understand the relationship between media and democracy in Turkey. Towards that end, it situates the media in its political and historical context. It argues that Turkey’s media structure falls under the “Mediterranean or Polarised Pluralistic Model” developed by Hallin and Mancini due to the very low level of newspaper circulation, the tradition of advocacy journalism, the structure of media ownership, the absence of an autonomous profession immune to pressure from politicians, interest groups, state institutions, the army and the judiciary and the extremely low level of unionization in the media which leads to high levels of labour exploitation. The report argues that despite relative progress achieved in the EU accession process, Turkey continues to fall far below the goal of harmonizing its legal framework with the EU’s acquis communitaire, mainly due to the prevalent political culture and the historical origins of state-media relations in Turkey.
The word most frequently uttered by Greece and Turkey with regard to their Muslim1 and non-Muslim minorities, respectively, is most probably ‘reciprocity.’ For more than half a century, in both countries, virtually all administrations,irrespective of their political leanings and ideological base, resorted to the good old ‘reciprocity argument’ to legitimize their laws, policies, and practices restricting the minority rights of Muslim and non-Muslim communities.
Both states have for decades justified their policies on the basis of a theory that argues that Article 45 of the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne provided the legal basis for reciprocity. Deliberately distorting a crystal-clear provision, which simply confers parallel obligations on Greece and Turkey for the protection of the Muslim and non-Muslim minorities, respectively, both states have for decades held their own citizens hostage, pitting them against each other in the name of defeating the other in foreign policy. Disregarding the objections of international lawyers and institutions that the reciprocity principle does not apply to human rights treaties and that states cannot condition the protection of the fundamental rights of their citizens on the policies of other states, both Greece and Turkey have successfully manipulated their national
public opinion into believing in the legitimacy of treating minorities as lesser citizens. This report analyzes the implications of reciprocity policies on the day-to-day lives of Muslim and
non-Muslim minorities in Greece and Turkey, specifically their impact on the community foundations2 belonging to these minorities. With a specific focus on the property and self-management issues of Muslim and non-Muslim community foundations in Greece and Turkey, the report situates the issue in its historical context and trace the evolution of the ‘community foundation issue’ from Lausanne to the present day. Drawing similarities and differences between the laws, policies, and practices of Greek and Turkish states vis-à-vis their minority foundations, the report critically assesses the progress made to this day as well as identify the outstanding issues.