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

1. Good Governance, DemocracyGood Governance, Democracy
and Rule of Law inTurkeyand Rule of Law inTurkey
Ersin Kalaycıo luğ
Sabancı Üniversitesi,
Science Academy,Turkey

2. Good Governance: DefinitionGood Governance: Definition
 “Good governance promotes equity (hakkaniyet), participation (katılma),
pluralism (ço ulculukğ ), transparency (saydamlık), accountability (hesap
verilebilirlik) 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 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)

4. 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
Applications
inadmissible
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).

5. • 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).

6. 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.

7. 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.G
ovt.Powers
Absence
C
orruption
O
rderand
SecurityFundam
entalR
ights
O
pen
G
overnm
ent
Effect.R
egul.Enforcem
entAccess
to
C
ivilJustice
Effective
C
rim
inalJustice
Type of Rule of Law Measure
FactorScore
Turkey
World

8. Rule of Law and DemocracyRule of Law and Democracy
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011/12
RankinScoreandpercent
Years
Freedom of the Press ( Reporters without Borders, Turkey in the World; 2002 -
2011)
Rank
Percent

9. 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.)

10. Category / COUNTRY Rank Overall Score
Electoral Process
and Pluralism
Functioning of
Government
Political
participation Political Culture Civil Liberties
FULL DEMOCRACY
Norway 1 9,93 10 9,64 10 10 10
Sweden 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 8,53
Japan 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 9,41
Spain 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 9,12
Portugal 26 7,92 9,58 6,43 6,67 7,5 9,41
Fransa 26 7,88 9,58 7,14 6,67 7,5 8,53
Italya 32 7,74 9,58 6,43 6,67 7,5 8,53
India 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
HYBRID
Ukraine 80 5,91 7,92 4,64 5,56 4,38 7,06
Bangladesh 84 5,86 7,42 5,43 5 4,38 7,06
Bolivia 85 5,84 7 5 6,11 3,75 7,35
TURKEY 88 5,76 7,6 7,92 6,79 5 4,12
Tunusia 90 5,67 5,75 5 6,67 6,25 4,71
Albania 90 5,67 7 4 5 5 7,35
Georgia 93 5,53 8,25 3,21 5 5 6,18
Egypt 109 4,56 3,42 4,64 5 5,63 4,12
Source: The Economist Intelligence Unit, Democracy Index 2012
Performance over the years
2012 2011 2010 2008 2006
Turkey 5,76 5,73 5,73 5,69 5,7

11. Democratic GovernanceDemocratic Governance
1. 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.