Country of origin information report Turkey March 2007

Return to contents

Go to list of sources
14 Political affiliation
Freedom of political expression
14.01 The US State Department (USSD) report 2005, published on 8 March 2006, noted that:
“The 2002 parliamentary elections were held under election laws that the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) found established a framework for democratic elections in line with international standards; however, the OSCE mission noted that several parties - notably the AKP, the winner of the elections - faced judicial action aimed at closing them down, and many candidates were also prohibited from running. The OSCE reported that, while there were a substantial number of cases of harassment reported by some political parties and by human rights groups, the elections were generally free and fair. Political parties and candidates could freely propose themselves and be freely nominated by various elements in the country. The high court of appeals chief prosecutor could only seek to close political parties for unconstitutional activities by bringing a case before the Constitutional Court.” [5b] (p16)
14.02 The USSD 2005 report further noted that:
“During the year police raided dozens of Democratic People's Party (DEHAP) offices, particularly in the southeast, and detained hundreds of DEHAP officials and members. Jandarma and police regularly harassed DEHAP members through verbal threats, arbitrary detentions at rallies, and detention at checkpoints. Security forces also regularly harassed villagers they believed were sympathetic to DEHAP. Although security forces released most detainees within a short period, many faced trials, usually for supporting an illegal organization or inciting separatism.” [5b] (p16)
14.03 As noted in the Amnesty International 2006 report covering events from January to December 2005, “A wide range of laws containing fundamental restrictions on freedom of expression remained in force. These resulted in the prosecution of individuals for the peaceful expression of opinions in many areas of public life. In some cases comments by senior government officials demonstrated an intolerance of dissenting opinion or open debate and seemed to sanction prosecution.” [12d]
14.04 The International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights (IHF) Focus report on Elections noted that:
“Although the OSCE/ODIHR generally deemed the parliamentary elections as a positive sign of the vibrancy of Turkey’s democracy, it noted that there were still strict limits for the scope of political debate. This was seen, for example, in the measures to close down many parties during the election campaign, including the AKP and the People’s Democracy Party (HADEP), and in the banning of many candidates from running as a result of past convictions for non-violent expression, including Murat Bozlak, former chairman of HADEP; Necmettin Erbakan, former prime minister and chairman of the banned Virtue Party; and Akin Birdal, former leader of the Socialist Democratic Party and former chairman of the Human Rights Association of Turkey. Also, by European standards, the threshold of 10% of the nationwide vote for parties to enter

the parliament was exceptionally high. The ODIHR also reported harassment of members of some political parties and human rights defenders, although the situation had improved markedly compared with previous elections. Finally, it recommended Turkey to find alternative penalties to the drastic sanctions (closure) of media outlets which violated regulations of media coverage.” [10b]

14.05 The OSCE’s Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (OSCE/ODIHR) in an assessment report for the Turkish parliamentary elections which took place on 3 November 2002 noted that:
“The 3 November elections for the Turkish Grand National Assembly (TGNA)

demonstrated the vibrancy of Turkey’s democracy. At the same time, the broader legal framework and its implementation establish strict limits on the scope of political debate in Turkey. Non-violent expression of political views beyond these limits is still restricted by a variety of laws and is rigorously

enforced. Several parties faced action aimed at closing them down during the current elections, notably the Justice and Development Party (AK), the winner of the elections. Many candidates were also banned from running, including AK’s leader and leaders of several other parties, generally as a result of past convictions for non-violent political speech. These restrictions on free speech and the practice of dissolving political parties and banning candidates stand in stark contrast to the otherwise pluralist election system in Turkey, as well as its international commitments.” [14b]
14.06 The same OCSE report further noted that:
“Parties must win at least 10% of the vote to enter the TGNA; this is an exceptionally high threshold by European standards. Only two of the 18 parties running passed the threshold. As a result, 45% of the electorate cast votes for parties that will not be represented in the TGNA, and a party that drew less than 35% of the total vote will control almost two thirds of the seats in the TGNA. To avoid such distortions, the authorities should consider reviewing the level of the threshold. Other aspects of the law that might be reviewed are the absence of any judicial appeals against the decisions of the Supreme Board of Elections, and the absence of procedures for voting abroad.” [14b]
See also paragraph 19:22 Pro-Kurdish Political Parties