Weekly journalists’ meetings held in the Press House in Ankara as part of the Media for Democracy/Democracy for Media program (M4D) continue to draw attention. “Hukuk Akademisi Derneği” (Law Academy Association) chairman Esq. Ömer Lütfü Avşar held a talk titled “Legal Aspect of the Elections” focusing on election processes and the recent March 31 elections in Turkey.

M4D Assistant Coordinator Seva Erten, who made the opening speech, remarked that Avşar played an integral role of establishing friendly links between Turkey and Cuba. Erten also mentioned that the weekly journalists’ meeting will end at the end of June but will start again in September.

Avşar started his speech by saying that the biggest problem of our day is information pollution and continued “We need to underline certain things from past to present. Turkey’s biggest problem is the immense amount of information pollution. This is caused by the incompetence of people working in institutions, the political figures that run these institutions that manipulate the voter base who don’t have the background to make the right decisions.”

The Supreme Electoral Council was comprised of members from the Supreme Court and State Council for the first time in 1950

Avşar touched upon previous elections and amendments in Turkey and said: “We see the first blow to our democracy in the 1946 elections where secret ballots and open counting took place. It’s important to take into consideration that we have a party that was founded 8 months prior to the elections, an election that was held without amendments to electoral laws and the distribution of votes between 1946-1960. In 1946 CHP got 87 percent of the total votes, whereas Democrat Party only got 11%. CHP was able to get 395 members of parliament out of a total of 465, and Democrat Party was able to get 66 members of parliament. When you look at it mathematically you can see there’s a big injustice here. We never talk about these things. We then transition to a democratic process; we have and election in 1950. In this election Democrat Party gets 52% and CHP gets 40%. Democrat Party gets 408 members of parliament whereas CHP only gets 69. In 1954 Democrat Party gets 57% of the total votes, and CHP gets 35%. Democrat Party was able to get 502 members of parliament and CHP only 31. In 1957 the Democrat Party goes under 50% and the opposition gets 47.9% of the total vote, but Democrat Party was able to get 424 members of parliament whereas the opposition was only able to get 186.  This demonstrates quite clearly that having a secure election and applying election laws is not sufficient to facilitate democracy. The aim of an election is to facilitate democracy by reflecting the will of every person of legal age through voting. There is no difference between how the open vote, hidden count and the following hidden vote, open count has affected democracy. What solves these problems aren’t laws but how we implement these laws. The party in power decided in 1946 that elections should be held under the supervision of a judge. The Supreme Electoral Council was comprised of members from the Supreme Court and State Council for the first time in 1950.

Avşar “In the 2018 amendment we see for the first time an amendment against the law”

Avşar underlined that the law had been the same since 1950 until 2018 when we saw for the first time an amendment made against the law “The contemporary law that caused debate in 31 March was first drafted in 1950. In 1950 the Supreme Electoral Council had 11 full members and 6 reserve members. Following the coup in 1960 and amendment in 1961 changed the number of members to 7 full members and 4 reserve members. The is no sign of innovation, the reason is was the same reason and there was only a change in the number of members. Where is there information pollution in any of this? There is not difference between the electoral law of 1961 and the first electoral law; it has been implemented in the 2000s, and even in 2010 without any problems. We had an election in 2002, the party in power was able to get almost 70% of parliament, despite this us citizens were adamant about protecting the electoral law and the ballot box, we never show any resistance against this injustice by hitting the streets. We show great understanding so that both parliament and the party in power could persist. The law has been the same since 1950 but in the 2018 amendment we see for the first time an amendment against the law. What happened in the amendment? Confusion of full and reserve members of the Supreme Electoral Council rendered the application of the law impossible, and for the first time the tenure of the members of the Supreme Electoral Council was lengthened. Following this change we still don’t know how many members of the Supreme Electoral Council are full members and how many are reserve members. The Constitution states that the Supreme Electoral Council is comprised of 11 members, 7 whom are full members and 4 whom are reserve members; these members elect a chairman and deputy chairman. The reason behind full members and reserve members is to sustain the decision-making mechanism of the institutions. The 31 March elections were cancelled under the premise of electoral infractions, but there were 11 signatures on the document. If there is an infraction you need to identify it, and this results in unlawful absence. Either the annulment of the reports of the 31 March elections, or the 2002 deselection must be cancelled. When assessing the contemporary situation, we must take into account that what is very clearly defined has been the topic of public debate; the legal aspect of these developments is clearly defined and I think the main problem is that this clarity has had no ramifications. Holding elections within the legal framework does not guarantee democracy, even if you’ve regulated everything in legal terms if you do not have a competent system you will not get good results. Therefore, we could say that a system that would enable for democracy to prevail has never existed in Turkey in the first place.

Governments have been able to manipulate the public easily

Avşar emphasized that more important than changing the electoral law is to change the political parties act and governments have been very reluctant to do anything about it. In order for democracy to prevail the political parties act must be changed so that the public can exert it’s will remarked Avşar and added “If we continue to elect political leaders and those who obey them, the separation of powers will only exist on paper. In honesty, since 1946 things have never changed. We do not have an example of the people’s will being represented in parliament, or democratic principles being in effect through any government. That’s why governments have been able to manipulate the public easily. We believe that we’ve become polarized and hate each other, this has been the case since the 1970’s and 1980’s. They’ve always polarized us, condemned us to a ballot box which never reflected our will as a people.” Avşar talked about how the Supreme Electoral Council didn’t only make mistakes during the 31 March Elections, and how people do not believe in law therefore people aren’t able to judge events lawfully. Following the 15 July Coup Attempt half of the judges in Turkey were arrested on the grounds of “being a member of a terrorist organization” reminded Avşar, and concluded that there has been deep deterioration in the judiciary.

The Supreme Electoral Council cancelled the elections on the basis of a subject in the jurisdiction of the Supreme Board of Judges and Prosecutors.

Avşar commented on the cancellation of the 31 March Elections, he underlined that the Supreme Electoral Council’s decision runs against the practice since 1950. Avşar also mentioned the incompetence and changes in institutions: “the Supreme Electoral Council stated that chairpersons of the balloting committee did not abide by the law. The council stated that these chairpersons must be public officials. We have held elections for the past 68 years until 2018 without balloting committee chairpersons being public officials. The Supreme Electoral Council published its decision, they concluded that the chairperson were not public officials. The council made this decision on the premise of making sure the people were able to exert their will; but in return they were not able to designate how the chairpersons not being public officials hindered this in any way, it had to literally show how it hindered it. They based their decision on a decree, this was in the jurisdiction of the Supreme Board of Judges and Prosecutors. It transgressed the boundaries of another institution and put pressure on it. They drew suspicion to the judges, and caused them to be viewed with suspicion from the public if they were to serve during the following election. This was not caused by any loophole in the law, but resulted from the council making a legal path for its decision rather than making a decision based on the law. I believe that the decision the Supreme Electoral Council made is open to judicial remedy, but the cancellation cannot be appealed. Yet, the council’s decision being made not by its 7 full but by 7 full and 4 reserve members is a different topic. The obscurity surrounding who are full and who are reserve members will be appealed to the Constitutional Court. The Supreme Electoral Council’s decision cannot be appealed, but the structure of the council not being in accordance with the law annuls its decision which results in an absence of decision which will be taken to the Constitutional Court.”