Turkey: Democracy and Human Rights: Where are we?

Yesterday, the European Commission's Turkish Delegation organised a panel on democracy and human rights, where academics and the chair of the Prime Ministerial Human Rights Presidency discussed the current state of Turkey.

The European Commission?s Turkish Delegation formed a Turkish Forum of the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR) on February 4th 2008.

Presenters at the forum?s afternoon panel entitled Democratisation and Human Rights Reforms in Turkey: Where are we? were Prof. Dr. Fuat Keyman from Koc University, Istanbul, Etyen Mahcupyan from the Turkish Economic and Social Studies Foundation (TESEV), Prof. Dr. Ayhan Kaya from Bilgi University, Istanbul, and Prof. Dr. Hasan Fendogulu, of the Prime Ministerial Human Rights Presidency.

Kaya: Optimism after Helsinki Summit
Kaya looked at the period from the Helsinki Summit in 1999 until 2005, and then from 2005 to 2007. He argued that in the second period there was a rise in disillusionment with the EU in Turkey, as well as a rise in exclusionism and nationalism in the EU, both of which trends led to a waste of time.
He spoke of then Prime Minister Bülent Ecevit, who thought that a trauma had ended with the capture of PKK leader Abdullah Öcalan in 1999. Ecevit wrote a letter to German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, seeking support for EU membership. The promise given at the Helsinki Summit was very important, so Kaya.

Kaya pointed out that after the Helsinki Summit the military influence on politics was reduced, and there were steps taken concerning torture, transparency, interregional inequality, as well as a facing-up to history.
Since 2005: Decline in democracy and EU relations

However, since 2005, so Kaya, there has been an increase in majority and minority nationalism, there has been social tension and violence in events in Mersin, Trabzon and Semdinli, the murder of Hrant Dink, and a renewed debate on the headscarf.

In the EU, on the other hand, there has been an increase in mistrust, the crisis of an EU constitution, a rise in opposition to migration, and an increase in Islamophobia; thus, the support which Turkey enjoyed from the EU has been lost.

Referring to the recent operation against the ultra-nationalist ?Ergenekon? gang, Kaya emphasised that illegal efforts needed to be punished by the judiciary if more dark days were to be avoided.

Fendogulu: People need to be educated about human rights
Fendogulu said that the Human Rights Directorate was a new institution, and that most appeals to it concerned unemployment, conditions in prisons and violations in the health sector.

Although the legal framework of the committee?s duties were still vague, Fendogulu said it was a priority to promote collaboration between institutions:

?Everyone needs human rights. 45 percent of the population does not know that torture and maltreatment are illegal. Rights on paper do not mean anything. The state is resisting institutions. Human rights are not given enough importance in education.?

Information about the directorate can be found at its official website.

Keyman: Turkey is modern but not truely democratic
Keyman pointed to the paradox that the number of countries said to be democratic was on the rise, but that most rights violations happened in these countries. For Keyman, Turkey?s state institutions had become modern, but in society there has been no development of multi-culturalism or further democratisation.

For Keyman the most pressing issues in Turkey were the Kurdish issue, the discrimination against non-Muslim minorities, the relationship between the military and civilians, and the jduciary.

It was important not to move from democracy to moderate Islam or nationalism, but to develop a liberal left, and politically liberal and social democratic alternatives.
Mahcupiyan: A more pessimistic outlook

Mahcupiyan said that he was more pessimistic than the other speakers. He said that although it was clear that some things had not changed, people had started not talking about them. According to him it was difficult to be optimistic as long as there was no definition of a nation independent of the past, and as long as the concept of society was not inclusive.