Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Good Governance, Democracy and Rule of Law in Turkey - Ersin Kalaycioglu
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

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

332
views

Published on

Good Governance, Democracy and Rule of Law in Turkey …

Good Governance, Democracy and Rule of Law in Turkey
Prof. Dr. Ersin Kalaycıoğlu
Sabanci University
Science Academy, Turkey

Published in: News & Politics

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
332
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
11
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Good Governance, DemocracyGood Governance, Democracyand Rule of Law inTurkeyand Rule of Law inTurkeyErsin Kalaycıo luğSabancı Üniversitesi,Science Academy,Turkey
  • 2. Good Governance: DefinitionGood Governance: Definition “Good governance promotes equity (hakkaniyet), participation (katılma),pluralism (ço ulculukğ ), transparency (saydamlık), accountability (hesapverilebilirlik) and the rule of law (hukukun üstünlü üğ ), in a manner that is effective,efficient and enduring. In translating these principles into practice, we see theholding of free, fair and frequent elections, representative legislaturesthat make laws and provides oversight, and an independent judiciary tointerpret 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 ofgovernance 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 consistentwith 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, UNGeneral Assembly stated that “all persons, institutions and entities, public andprivate, including the State itself are accountable to just (adil), fair (hakça), andequitable (yansız) laws and are entitled without discrimination to equalprotection of the law.” (http://issuu.com/undp/docs/issue_brief_-_rule_of_law_and_the_post-2015_develop)
  • 3. Turkish Performance at ECHR 1959 - 2008ECHRJudgments1959-19981999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Judgments 34 19 39 229 105 123 171 290 334 331 264Applicationsinadmissibleor struck out538 153 394 385 1638 1636 1818 1366 3169 1573 1475Source: European Court of Human Rights (AIHM), Country Statistics, (1 January 2009): page 136. (2).
  • 4. • Moral of the Story: Turkish Judge Işıl Karakaş argued that there was“a drastic (unbelievable) increase in the Turkish applications to theECHR in 2011. Last year there were 6000 – 6500 applications, andthis year applications have already reached 9000.” She further arguedthat there are severe problems with the application of the habeascorpus principle by the Turkish courts. (NTV interview, athttp://www.imc-tv.com/haber-aihme-basvurularda-yuzde-50-artis-1023.html).
  • 5. Turkey and the European Court of Human Rights (2010 – 2013)Applications pending before the ECHR on 23/01/2013 (TURKEY)*Total pending Applications 18774Applications pending before a judicial formation: 16798Single Judge 3296Committee (3 Judges) 3976Chamber (7 Judges) 9525Grand Chamber (17 Judges) 1*including applications for which completed application forms have not yetbeen received.Applications Processed in 2010 2011 2012Applications allocated to a judicial formation 5800 8662 9092Communicated to the Government 1308 458 422Applications decided 3789 7755 8048Declared inadmissible or struck out (SingleJudge)2421 6489 7273Declared inadmissible or struck out(Committee)576 247 216Declared inadmissible or struck out (Chamber) 290 790 425Decided by judgment 502 229 134Interim measures 55 73 66Granted 7 3 2Refused 48 70 64Source: ECHR Country Profile (Turkey).ApplicationsHigh case-count States (more than 3,000 applications pending before a judicialformation, 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: 128,100Source: ECHR Statistical Analysis.
  • 6. Rule of Law (Turkey versus the World 2011)00,10,20,30,40,50,60,70,8Ltd.Govt.PowersAbsenceCorruptionOrderandSecurityFundamentalRightsOpenGovernmentEffect.Regul.EnforcementAccesstoCivilJusticeEffectiveCriminalJusticeType of Rule of Law MeasureFactorScoreTurkeyWorld
  • 7. Rule of Law and DemocracyRule of Law and Democracy0204060801001201401602002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011/12RankinScoreandpercentYearsFreedom of the Press ( Reporters without Borders, Turkey in the World; 2002 -2011)RankPercent
  • 8. Good Governance: TIGood Governance: TITurkey 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.)
  • 9. Category / COUNTRY Rank Overall ScoreElectoral Processand PluralismFunctioning ofGovernmentPoliticalparticipation Political Culture Civil LibertiesFULL DEMOCRACYNorway 1 9,93 10 9,64 10 10 10Sweden 2 9,73 9,58 9,64 9,44 10 10U.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 9,41Belgium 24 8,05 9,58 8,21 5,56 7,5 9,41Spain 25 8,02 9,58 7,5 6,11 7,5 9,41FLAWEDDEMOCRACIESCape 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 9,41Bulgaria 54 6,72 9,17 5,71 6,11 4,38 8,24HYBRIDUkraine 80 5,91 7,92 4,64 5,56 4,38 7,06Bangladesh 84 5,86 7,42 5,43 5 4,38 7,06Bolivia 85 5,84 7 5 6,11 3,75 7,35TURKEY 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 6,18Egypt 109 4,56 3,42 4,64 5 5,63 4,12Source: The Economist Intelligence Unit, Democracy Index 2012Performance over the years2012 2011 2010 2008 2006Turkey 5,76 5,73 5,73 5,69 5,7
  • 10. Democratic GovernanceDemocratic Governance1. Elections: Fair and Free (more or less in effect),2. Inclusive Suffrage (In Effect, except for 10% nationalthreshold),3. The right to run for office (In Effect with somerestrictions),4. Freedom of Expression (Restricted),5. Freedom of the Press / Media and Alternative Sourcesof Information (Restricted),6. Freedom of Association (Association Autonomy)(Restricted for the Opponents),7. Civil – Military Relations, Civilian control of theMilitary (In Effect). Moral of the Story: Delegative Democracy / IlliberalDemocracy versus the Hybrid Regime.