Observation of the early parliamentary elections in Turkey (1 November 2015)
Election observation report
| Doc. 13922
| 20 November 2015
- Author(s):
- Ad hoc Committee of the Bureau
- Rapporteur :
- Mr Andreas GROSS,
Switzerland, SOC
1 Introduction
1. The Bureau of the Parliamentary
Assembly, at its meeting on 31 August 2015, decided to observe the early
parliamentary elections in Turkey on 1 November 2015 (subject to
receiving an invitation) and constituted an ad hoc committee for
this purpose composed of 30 members (SOC: 11; EPP/CD: 10; ALDE:
4; EC: 3; UEL: 2) and of the co-rapporteurs of the Monitoring Committee
on the post-monitoring dialogue with Turkey, Ms Ingebjørg Godskesen
(Norway, EC) and Ms Nataša Vučković (Serbia, SOC). The Bureau also
authorised a pre-electoral mission. On 1 September 2015, Mr Reha
Denemeç, in his capacity as Chairperson of the Turkish delegation,
invited the Parliamentary Assembly to observe the early parliamentary
elections. The Bureau of the Assembly, at its meeting on 28 September
2015, approved the composition of the ad hoc committee and appointed
Mr Andreas Gross (Switzerland, SOC) as its Chairperson (see Appendix
1).
2. Under the terms of Article 15 of the co-operation agreement
signed between the Parliamentary Assembly and the European Commission
for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission) on 4 October 2004,
an expert from the Venice Commission was invited to join the ad
hoc committee as an adviser. Mr Srđan Darmanović took part in the
work of the ad hoc committee on behalf of the Venice Commission.
3. The pre-electoral delegation was in Ankara on 5 and 6 October
2015 to evaluate the state of preparations and the political climate
in the run-up to the early parliamentary elections on 1 November
2015. The multiparty delegation was composed of seven members (see
Appendix 1). It met with leaders and representatives of the main
political parties running in the elections, the Head of the Election
Observation Mission of the Office for Democratic Institutions and
Human Rights of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in
Europe (OSCE/ODIHR), the Chairperson of the Turkish delegation to
the Parliamentary Assembly, the Chairperson of the Supreme Board
of Elections (SBE), representatives of the Ministry of the Interior,
the President and members of the Radio and Television Supreme Council
(RTSC), representatives of civil society and the media, as well
as members of the diplomatic corps in Ankara. At the end of its
visit, the pre-electoral delegation released a statement (Appendix
2).
4. For the main election observation mission, the ad hoc committee
operated in the framework of an International Election Observation
Mission (IEOM) alongside the delegation of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly
and the Limited Election Observation Mission (LEOM) of the OSCE/ODIHR.
Mr Jose Ignacio Sánchez Amor (Spain) was the Special Co-ordinator
leading the short-term OSCE observer mission. Ms Margareta Cederfelt
(Sweden) was Head of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly delegation.
Ambassador Geert-Hinrich Ahrens was the Head of the OSCE/ODIHR Limited
Election Observation Mission.
5. The ad hoc committee met in Ankara on 30 and 31 October 2015
and took part in joint PACE/OSCE-PA parliamentary briefings. It
met, amongst others, representatives of the main political parties
running for the elections, members of the Radio and Television Supreme
Council and representatives of civil society and the media. The
programme of the ad hoc committee’s meetings is set out in Appendix
3.
6. On the day of the ballot, the ad hoc committee split into
16 teams which observed the elections in Ankara and its region,
as well as in the regions and municipalities of Istanbul and Izmir.
Due to security constraints, it was not possible to deploy teams
in the eastern and south-eastern parts of the country. The conclusions
of this report are based on the observations of the PACE pre-electoral
mission and the ad hoc committee, and the preliminary findings published
by the OSCE/ODIHR LEOM.
7. The ad hoc committee concluded that the 1 November early parliamentary
elections in Turkey offered voters a variety of choice. At the same
time, the challenging security environment, particularly in the
south-east of the country, coupled with a high number of violent
incidents, including attacks against party members, premises and
campaign staff (predominantly from the People’s Democratic Party
(HDP)), hindered the contestants’ ability to campaign freely. While
the media landscape comprises a variety of outlets, undue legal restrictions
on media freedom remain in place. Investigations launched against
journalists and media outlets for supporting terrorism or for defamation
of the president, the blocking of websites, the forcible seizure
of prominent media outlets and the removal of several television
stations from digital service providers, reduced access to a plurality
of views and of information. The elections were well organised by
the election administration and took place in a generally peaceful
atmosphere, but the election campaign was characterised by unfairness
and, to a serious degree, fear. The statement published by the IEOM
after the elections is reproduced in Appendix 4.
2 Political context and legal
framework
8. Following the parliamentary
elections of 7 June 2015, the 550 member parliament was composed
of the Justice and Development Party (AKP, 40.87% of the votes)
with 258 seats, the Republican People’s Party (CHP, 24.95%) with
132 seats, the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP, 16.29%) with 80
seats and the Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP, 13.2%) also with 80
seats. 95% of voters were represented in the parliament. The AKP lost
its parliamentary majority for the first time since 2002, while
the Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP), a party with a pro-Kurdish
stance, entered parliament after surpassing the 10% threshold for
the first time in Turkish history. These elections were observed
by the Parliamentary Assembly in the framework of an IEOM alongside the
delegation of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly and the LEOM of the
OSCE/ODIHR.
Note
9. While no political party had a majority, the President of
the Republic, Mr Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, entrusted, on 25 August 2015,
the leader of the main political group in the parliament, former
Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu, to carry out negotiations with a
view to forming a coalition alliance. This attempt failed. Mr Erdoğan
did not, as had been the practice in Turkey, invite the leader of
the second largest party (i.e. the CHP) to form a coalition. An
interim government (so-called “election government”) was subsequently established,
with Mr Davutoğlu in the post of Prime Minister. Both the CHP and
MHP declared that they would take no part in the interim government.
Therefore, the interim government was formed by the AKP with independent
figures, one member of the MHP (who was subsequently dismissed from
the party) and two members from the HDP. However, the two ministers
representing the HDP resigned on 22 September 2015.
10. On 25 August 2015, the Supreme Board of Elections (SBE) announced
that the early parliamentary elections (26th elections)
would be held on 1 November 2015. The preparation of these early
elections took place in a dramatically changed political and security
environment, compared to the 7 June elections, notably marked by
the suspension of the peace process, and the resumption of clashes
between the Turkish Security Forces and the Kurdistan Worker’s Party
(PKK) after two and a half years of the peace process. In addition, the
authorities were also engaged in renewed fighting against the terrorist
group known as “IS” (“Da'ish” in Arabic),
Note the
Gülen Movement (which has been recently referred to as the “Fethullah
Gülen Terrorist Organisation” (FETÖ) by the Turkish authorities)
and other organisations labelled as terrorist organisations.
Note These developments have led to
further polarisation of, and tensions in, the country.
11. As stated in previous Assembly reports on the observation
of elections in Turkey, the legal framework in Turkey, which has
remained untouched since June 2015, is generally conducive to the
conduct of democratic elections, if implemented fully and effectively.
The elections are primarily regulated by the 1982 Constitution, the
1961 Law on Basic Provisions on Elections and Voter Registers (Law
on Basic Provisions), the 1983 Law on Parliamentary Elections, and
the 1983 Law on Political Parties (LPP). Amendments were adopted
in 2014 to the Law on Political Parties (enabling a decrease in
the threshold for political parties to qualify for State funding)
and the Law on Basic Provisions (allowing campaigning in any language).
While the last Assembly report on the observation of the parliamentary
elections of 7 June 2015
Note described the legal
framework at length, it might be useful to recall the key areas
identified by the ad hoc committee in June 2015, which were in need
of improvement and remained unaddressed since the last, and even
the previous parliamentary elections:
Note
- The
10% electoral threshold: despite the fact that this threshold
was the subject of public discussion in recent months, political
parties still had to surpass the national electoral threshold of
10% of valid votes cast to qualify for seat allocation. The AssemblyNote and the European Court of Human RightsNote have continuously pointed out that
this high threshold hinders political pluralism in the parliament.
- The lack of judicial review
of SBE decisions, which challenges the separation of
powers and denies access to effective judicial remedy in electoral
disputes, in contradiction with the Venice Commission’s Code of
Good Practice (Section II.3.3). The Constitutional Court’s recent
ruling that SBE decisions cannot be reviewed even for violations
of fundamental rights and freedoms further restricted the opportunity
for stakeholders to seek judicial redress.Note
- Shortcomings in the constitutional
framework: the 1982 Constitution, which was adopted under
military rule, concentrates on bans and prohibitions rather than
broad guarantees of fundamental rights and freedoms, as it entrenches
undue limitations on the freedoms of association, assembly and expression, as
well as on electoral rights.
- System of seat allocation:
The system of seat allocation to constituencies results in a significant differential
in the number of voters per parliamentary seat, which is inconsistent
with the principle of equality of the vote provided for by Section
I.2.2.2.iv of the Code of Good Practice in Electoral Matters (Code
of Good Practice).Note
- Restrictions to freedom of
expression: insulting the President is a criminal offence
(Article 299 of the Criminal Code). This charge, overused in recent
months, restricts freedom of speech and campaigning. In addition,
political parties are prohibited from promoting a number of political
ideologies, including non-secularism or the existence of minorities.
These restrictions undermine the freedoms of association and expression
and limit political pluralism.
- Absence of a legal basis for
domestic and international observation of elections,
despite the recommendations made by AssemblyNote and
by the Venice Commission in the “Code of Good Practice”.Note
- Restrictions to voting rights,
which apply to active conscripts, students in military schools and
prisoners convicted of committing intentional crimes, regardless
of the seriousness of the crime. The European Court of Human Rights
has ruled twice that the ban on convicted prisoners’ voting rights
is too broad and must be proportionate to the crime committed. This
restriction is also at odds with the Venice Commission’s “Code of
Good Practice” (Section I.2.2.2.iv) and other international obligations.Note
- Restrictions to the right to
stand for elections applying to citizens over the age
of 25 years with legal capacity and primary education: they are
ineligible to contest the elections if they have not completed compulsory
military service, have been legally banned from public service,
or have been convicted of any of a broad range of crimes, including
minor offences (even if pardoned).
3 Electoral administration
and registration of the voters lists and candidates
12. The elections were conducted
in a generally professional manner. They were administered by a
four-tier election administration: the Supreme Board of Election
(SBE), 81 provincial election boards (PEBs), 1 067 district election
boards (DEBs) and 175 006 ballot box committees (BBCs). The SBE
is a permanent, 11-member body composed of judges elected for six
years with the overall authority and responsibility for the conduct
of the elections. Eligible political parties, namely the AKP, CHP,
MHP and the HDP, could appoint non-voting members to the SBE.
13. The PEBs are located in each province and consist of the three
most senior judges in the province, appointed for two-year terms.
The four political parties that received the highest number of votes
in the province in the last general elections can each nominate
a non-voting member to the PEB. The DEBs have seven members chaired
by the most senior judge in the district; four members are nominated
by political parties and two are civil servants. Women comprised
some 27% of PEB members but only 6% of DEB members. The BBCs are
required to be composed of seven members, five nominated by political
parties and two civil servants.
14. Prior to election day, the issue of the possible relocation
of ballot boxes in the areas affected by the escalation of violence
to safer locations
Note was
raised by the Assembly’s pre-electoral mission, and gave rise to
questions, and also speculation about possible political motivations
for such moves. Some DEBs either took the decision to relocate or
requested the SBE’s opinion on the issue. On 3 October, the SBE
decided in favour of conducting voting in these areas, stating that
the relocation of any polling stations outside of the respective
mukhtarlik (smallest administrative
area) was not in line with the law. Subsequently, several DEBs took decisions
to relocate a significant number of polling stations back within
the
mukhtarlik.
15. Out-of-country voting was conducted from 8 to 25 October 2015
in 113 polling locations established in 54 countries and at 30 customs
points across Turkey. Around 1.2 million (out of 2.89 million
Note)
voters voted abroad. Out-of-country ballots were transported by
charter flights and diplomatic pouches to be counted in Ankara.
Safeguards such as online verification of voters and secure storage
of election materials were put in place to ensure the integrity
of the process. The ad hoc committee noted that the out-of country
voter turnout has been steadily increasing since the introduction
of the measure in 2014, as required by the Assembly in 2004: 19%
in the 2014 presidential election, 32.5% in the June 2015 election
and 44% in the November 2015 elections.
16. Turkey has a passive voter registration system. The SBE maintains
a permanent central voter register linked to the civil and address
registry operated by the Ministry of the Interior. Since the June
2015 elections, the total number of voters increased by over 300 000
due to the number of those who reached 18 years of age since that
date.
Note Most interlocutors met by the Assembly’s
pre-electoral mission and ad hoc committee raised no concerns about
the reliability of the voter register.
17. Candidate registration was generally inclusive. Following
the nomination period and the period of public display and contestation,
the SBE announced that 16 political parties with 8 426 candidates
on their lists and 21 independent candidates had been registered.
Note Three
political parties were denied the right to contest the elections
by SBE decisions citing insufficient organisational structure.
Note
18. The Constitution guarantees gender equality. However, there
are no legal obligations for the political parties to nominate female
candidates. Some parties implemented voluntary gender quotas: the
HDP and the CHP ensured that respectively 50% and 33% of their candidates
were female. The number of female candidates on the AKP list decreased
compared to June 2015.
Note Overall, 24% of candidates on party
lists were female.
4 Election campaign, funding
of the campaign and media environment
19. In accordance with the electoral
law, the application of certain campaign regulations began on 31 August,
while the official campaign period started only ten days prior to
election day (from 22 October to 31 October at 6 p.m.), leaving
the larger campaign process under-regulated. Stricter regulations
and broader equitable campaign principles applied during the official
campaign period, such as a prohibition on all public ceremonies
and speeches on government works.
20. While contestants were in general able to convey their messages
to the electorate, the campaign was generally low-key: most political
parties used social media and undertook a door-to-door campaign
and small meetings, focusing on some targeted electoral districts
in the country where their party could possibly increase the number
of seats in parliament. The ad hoc committee also noted that political
parties had to run a second election campaign in the same year,
with no additional State funds allocated. Financial constraints
probably also contributed to the downsizing of the election campaign.
Some party leaders reached an informal “gentlemen’s agreement” to
refrain from using certain campaign methods to prevent noise and
environmental pollution.
Note An
increase in visibility of campaign material, in particular flags
and posters, was observed in the last days of the campaign. Some
parties used religious references
Note and three parliamentary
parties campaigned abroad,
Note both in breach of the law.
21. Under the Constitution, the president is obliged to be non-partisan
and perform his duties without bias. While participating in anti-terrorism
rallies organised across the country and abroad,
Note the
president used the opportunities to campaign in favour of a stable
majority, and criticised opposition figures, thus not abiding by his
constitutional duties to perform his mandate in an impartial manner.
22. The conduct of the campaign was, from the beginning, tarnished
by violence. As deplored by the Assembly’s pre-electoral delegation,
politically motivated violence was observed in the weeks preceding
the elections. This included the attacks, within two days, on 400
HDP offices and workplaces of the HDP party members from 6 to 8
September,
Note and on some AKP premises. It was
also informed that a number of HDP members, including mayors, were
arrested and detained in police operations, which raised concerns.
Note Certain HDP
campaign leaflets were confiscated.
Note Some members of
the CHP, the MHP and the HDP were investigated for defamation of
public authorities, including insulting the president. The AKP reported
a number of attacks on its offices and threats against its members,
in particular in the east and south-east of the country. There were
also reports of intimidation of voters and pressure to vote for
several political forces.
23. At the end of July 2015, violence escalated in the south-east
of the country, where a significant part of the Kurdish population
lives. In several provinces of the east and the south-east, the
ability to campaign freely was considerably restricted by the deteriorating
security situation and where Special Security Zones (SSZs) were
declared and/or curfews imposed
Note in
areas predominantly oriented towards voting for the HDP.
24. Violence culminated with the bomb attack in Suruc on 20 July
2015 (32 dead, dozens injured) and a major terrorist bomb attack
in Ankara on 10 October 2015, in which over 100 people were killed
and more than 500 injured. The HDP, which was targeted by this attack,
refrained from organising any rally from that date on. The AKP announced
on 12 October that the party’s subsequent rallies would be turned
into anti-terror rallies. The campaign atmosphere was increasingly
polarised between the AKP and the other contestants and confrontational
rhetoric was used.
25. The overriding issues were the socio-economic situation, the
“Solution Process” (which is the official term used to describe
the peace process) and the campaign against terrorism. The proposal
of the AKP to establish a presidential system, which was at the
heart of the June 2015 campaign, was less the subject of discussions,
although included in the manifesto of the party. The ad hoc committee,
however, considered that the general climate of the campaign, given
the uprise in violence, was conducive to establishing an atmosphere of
fear and insecurity among voters, which most certainly could have
had an influence on the political choice on election day.
26. As noted in previous Assembly reports, the legislation does
not contain comprehensive regulations on campaign financing. State
party funding is distributed annually, on a proportional basis,
to parties that received at least 3% of votes in the last parliamentary
elections.
Note The legislation only imposes certain
restrictions on the amount and nature of donations and there are
no requirements for disclosure of the sources and amounts of campaign
donations and spending other than in annual party finance reports,
which limits transparency.
27. While the media landscape comprises a variety of outlets,
the ad hoc committee expressed serious concerns about infringements
of the freedom of the press and freedom of expression. The constitutional
and legal restrictions on freedom of expression identified previously
remain in place. Unclear provisions in the Anti-Terrorism Law and
Press Law were excessively applied during the election period. A
number of journalists and media outlets were prosecuted for “support
of terrorism”. Criminal investigations launched on the basis of “insulting
the President of the Republic” were so numerous
Note that
it raises serious concerns as to whether the widespread recourse
to Article 299 is in line with European standards.
Note
28. Increased pressure was exercised against journalists, media
and media groups in recent months, which resulted in an increase
of self-censorship, and reduced voters’ access to a plurality of
views and information. A series of events can be mentioned here
to illustrate the overall media climate during the election campaign:
- the mobbing of the Hürriyet offices on 6 and 8 September
2015,Note and the brutal
assault of its columnist Ahmet Hakan on 1 October 2015;
- the termination of the broadcasting of several television
stations, most of them critical of the government, by four digital
service providers, following correspondence from the Ankara Prosecutor’s
Office in connection with ongoing investigations into charges of
supporting terrorism;Note
- further cases related to the terrorism charges brought
against the Doğan Medıa Group on 15 September, against the Koza-Ipek
Media Group on 1 September and the television stations Samanyolu
Haber and Mehtap TV on 15 October, all of which are critical of
the government;
- the replacement of the Koza-İpek Media Group management
by State trustees, following the decision issued on 26 October by
an Ankara Criminal Judge of Peace. On 27 October, officials together
with police forcibly entered the Koza-İpek Media Group building;
- a ban on reporting on any matter related to the investigation
of the Ankara bombing, de facto criminalising
reporting on issues of public concern;Note
- the police raid on the offices of the Kurdish daily newspaper Azadiya Welat and Kurdish news agency DIHA
in Diyarbakır on 28 September, which prompted the Council of Europe
to issue an alert on 5 October. Thirty-two detained Kurdish journalists
were released after being interrogated;
- as well as a number of restrictions on the Internet.Note
29. In this tense media landscape, the ad hoc committee was all
the more concerned that the sanctions based on the Radio and Television
Supreme Council’s (RTSC) media monitoring reports, and imposed by
the SBE on the broadcasters, did not provide an effective remedy
for breaches of regulations. Several stakeholders, including RTSC
members, questioned the RTSC methodology for monitoring the campaign coverage.
It clearly transpired from various media monitoring mechanisms that
the media blatantly favoured the ruling party,
Note while
media regulations require all broadcasters to ensure impartiality,
truthfulness and accuracy during broadcasting.
Note The lack of comprehensive guidelines
and definitions to implement these principles in the election period,
and the political composition of this Council,
Note do not enable the RTSC to regulate
the media scene in a way which guarantees fair access of political
contestants to media during election times, which would allow voters
to make a well informed choice.
30. The legal provisions governing the functioning of the SBE
and the handling of electoral complaints should be clarified to
ensure that effective and timely remedies are provided for electoral
complaints. As noted in the preliminary findings of the ODIHR IEOM,
the SBE received some 40 complaints and appeals lodged by political
parties, MPs and other stakeholders, mainly concerning unbalanced
and inaccurate media coverage as well as various decisions of the
election administration and campaign-related violations. While the
SBE effectively addressed some complaints, others were left without
substantive examination, and in some cases were not provided with
an effective or timely remedy. Some SBE decisions on complaints
and appeals were not sufficiently reasoned, especially in cases
which the SBE rejected or in which it decided it lacked authority. In
the absence of legal deadlines, the SBE did not deal with media-related
complaints, most of which related to the impartiality requirement,
in a timely manner in order to provide effective remedies for complainants
5 Election day
31. Election day was generally
organised in an efficient and peaceful manner in the areas that
were observed by the ad hoc committee. The counting process was
assessed as transparent and well organised. The tabulation at several
DEBs observed was assessed as orderly and efficient overall, despite
being crowded at times.
32. In the polling stations visited, the voting was generally
well organised. Despite legal constraints preventing non-governmental
organisations (NGOs) from being accredited as observers, civil society monitoring
of the electoral process was de facto vibrant.
The civil society platform “Oy ve Ötesi” (Vote and Beyond) intended
to deploy above 60 000 observers and were present in many polling
stations. On several occasions, the IEOM teams and international
observers were asked to leave the BBCs, at times by people acting
on behalf of electoral contestants. In several instances, citizen
observers accredited on behalf of political parties were denied
access. Following an instruction issued by a provincial governor,
police officers requested representatives of a citizen observer
group accredited on behalf of political parties to present their
identification.
33. The members of the ad hoc committee were deployed in 16 teams
and four locations (Ankara, Ankara Region, Izmir, Istanbul). They
visited about 200 polling stations. Their conclusions were the following:
- the members of the ad hoc committee
agreed to conclude that the elections were generally well conducted
in the polling stations visited;
- in a few polling stations, some tensions could be felt
due to the fact that voters were made aware of the strong presence
of some party observers. Some teams faced questions when entering
the polling stations but this could generally be overcome after
discussing with the Chairperson of the electoral board. In one case,
a team was denied access to a polling station, but the issue was
later resolved after the police, which was called by the electoral
board, intervened;
- the members observed a strong participation of disabled
and elderly people, who were assisted either by relatives (as allowed
by the regulations), or by members of the electoral board. In some
places, buses were used to bring voters to the polling stations;
- some members were puzzled by the role, and authority,
of headmasters of schools where polling stations were located;
- in several polling stations visited in the countryside,
there were no party observers and few representatives belonging
to the “Oy ve Ötesi” (Vote and Beyond);
- many polling stations were male-dominated, with the exception
of one all-female polling station;
- in one polling station in Kirsehir/Ankara, it was reported
that a voter had been caught photographing his ballot paper in the
voting boothNote The
chairperson notified the incident to the police. After consultation of
the DEB, the vote was considered as valid and able to be cast.
34. On 12 November, the SBE announced the official results of
the elections; with a voter turnout of 85.23%:
- AKP: 49.50% (317 seats);
- CHP: 25.32% (134 seats);
- MHP: 11.9% (40 seats);
- HDP: 10.76% (59 seats);
- Felicity Party (Saadet): 0.68% (no seat);
- Other political parties: 1.84% (no seat);
35. As regards gender equality, the number of elected female MPs
has decreased from 98 to 82 since the June elections. 24% of candidates
on party lists were female, although not in high positions, which
resulted in the fact that 14.91% of the elected MPs are women (they
were 17.8% in June 2015). While women play an active role in the
campaign, they remain under-represented in political life. All political
parties should therefore be strongly encouraged to implement gender
quotas as temporary measures to ensure a balanced representation
of women in parliament, and ensure that women are in eligible positions
on party lists.
6 Conclusions
and recommendations
36. The ad hoc committee concluded
that the elections were well conducted on election day, in a generally peaceful
atmosphere, despite the challenging security environment during
the election campaign. These elections offered a wide range of political
choices. The overall functioning of the polling stations visited
by members of the ad hoc committee was efficient and transparent.
The counting and tabulation processes were generally transparent
and carried out expeditiously. The ad hoc committee commends the
Turkish people for their active participation in the organisation
of the elections (with about one million citizens involved in the different
levels of the election administration), and its participation in
the election, with a high turnout, including in the areas in the
eastern and south-eastern part of Turkey affected by an adverse
security situation.
37. The ad hoc committee also welcomed the readiness and the increasing
capacity of a vibrant civil society to involve citizens in the monitoring
of these elections, as party and citizen observers, in particular
belonging to the “Oy ve Ötesi” (Vote and Beyond), and ensure their
active participation in the electoral process despite legal restrictions
that prevent domestic monitors being accredited as observers.
38. The ad committee noted that the legal framework – if implemented
fully and effectively – is generally conducive to the conduct of
democratic elections. However, freedom of association, assembly
and expression, as well as active and passive suffrage rights, are
to some extent unduly restricted in the Constitution and the general
legislation.
39. The ad hoc committee stresses, once again, that an election
process is much more than just an election day. The ad hoc committee
regrets that the election campaign was tarnished by a challenging
security environment, in particular in the south-east of the country,
and a high number of violent incidents, including attacks against
party members and campaign staff, as well as on party premises,
which hindered contestants’ ability to campaign freely.
40. Media coverage remained polarised along partisan lines, including
the public television broadcaster, displaying a significant bias
in favour of the ruling party. The ad hoc committee thus concluded
that the electoral campaign was characterised by unfairness, given
the serious restrictions on freedom of the media, the criminalisation
of dissenting voices, the lack of effective and timely remedies
provided by the Supreme Board of Elections (in particular with respect
to unfair media coverage) and judicial review of SEB decisions,
and the context of fear prevailing in the country following the
resumption of terrorist attacks and the renewed fight against terrorism.
41. The ad hoc committee expresses the wish that after these parliamentary
elections, which took place in a much more polarised atmosphere,
there will be a renewed dialogue within society to pursue the democratisation
process, and resume the peace talks to solve the Kurdish issue,
which is a key issue for the long-term democratic stability of the
country. In particular, it stressed the role that the president,
in line with his constitutional prerogatives, should play to work
for an inclusive political process to deal with the problems facing
Turkey, ensuring that all voices, including those who lost these
elections, are able to be heard.
42. A number of shortcomings, previously and repeatedly identified
by the Parliamentary Assembly, the Venice Commission and the OSCE/ODIHR,
remain unaddressed. The ad hoc committee therefore strongly encourages
the authorities to address, before the next elections, these shortcomings
in the framework of its post-monitoring dialogue with the Parliamentary
Assembly and the Council of Europe co-operation programmes, and
in close co-operation with the Venice Commission, in particular:
- review and adapt the electoral
legislation and relevant constitutional provisions, notably to eliminate discrepancies;
include better protection and regulation in the field of freedom
of speech and of the use of media during the campaign; improve the
rules concerning campaign and party funding (in line with the 2015
recommendations of the Group of States against Corruption (GRECO));
and review the method of seat allocation and ensure the principle
of equality of the vote due to significant differences in vote weight;
- lower the 10% threshold, which has an impact on the lack
of representativity of the parliament;
- set up a mechanism to allow judicial review of the SEB
decisions, and ensure access to judicial remedy in election matters,
in line with the recommendations of the Venice Commission;
- evaluate the composition and functioning of the Radio
and Television Supreme Council (RTSC) to ensure proper monitoring
of the Law on the Establishment of Radio and Television Enterprises
that obliges broadcasters to provide unbiased coverage of political
parties;
- ensure that the SBE provides effective and timely remedies
in case of breaches of the law;
- create a legal basis for citizen and international observation,
in line with Section II.3.2 of the Venice Commission’s “Code of
Good Practice”, which would contribute to improving overall trust
in the electoral process.
Appendix 1 –
Composition of the ad hoc committee
Based on the proposals by the political groups
of the Assembly, the ad hoc committee was composed as follows:
- Andreas GROSS (Switzerland,
SOC), Chairperson
- Group of the European People’s
Party (EPP/CD)
- Volodymyr
ARIEV, Ukraine*
- Elena CENTEMERO, Italy
- Iryna GERASHCHENKO, Ukraine
- Anže LOGAR, Slovenia
- Ion POPA, Romania
- Ionuƫ-Marian STROE, Romania
- Imer ALIU, “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”
- Socialist Group (SOC)
- Andreas GROSS, Switzerland*
- Josette DURRIEU, France
- Birutè VĖSAITĖ, Lithuania
- Paolo CORSINI, Italy
- Yuliya L’OVOCHKINA, Ukraine
- Alliance of Liberals and Democrats
for Europe (ALDE)
- André
BUGNON, Switzerland
- Alfred HEER, Switzerland
- Olena SOTNYK, Ukraine*
- Carles JORDANA MADERO, Andorra
- Eerik-Niiles KROSS, Estonia
- European Conservatives Group
(EC)
- Richard BALFE,
United Kingdom
- Christopher CHOPE, United Kingdom*
- Group of the Unified European
Left (UEL)
- Tiny
KOX*, Netherlands
- Nikolaj VILLUMSEN, Denmark*
- George LOUKAIDES, Cyprus
- Co-rapporteurs of the Monitoring
Committee (ex officio)
- Ms
Ingebjørg GODSKESEN, Norway*
- Ms Nataša VUCKOVIC, Serbia*
- Venice Commission
- Srđan DARMANOVIĆ, Montenegro
- Secretariat
- Sylvie AFFHOLDER, Administrator,
Parliamentary Assembly
- Danièle GASTL, Assistant, Election Observation and Interparliamentary
Co-operation Division, Parliamentary Assembly
- Sevda GÜNDÜZ, Assistant, Election Observation and Interparliamentary
Co-operation Division, Parliamentary Assembly
- Nathalie BARGELLINI, Press Officer, Parliamentary Assembly
- Amaya UBEDA DE TORRES, Administrator, Venice Commission
- Denise O’HARA, Secretary of the Group of the European
People’s Party (EPP/CD)
- Anna KOLOTOVA, Secretary of the Group of the Unified European
Left (UEL)
* Pre-electoral mission
Appendix 2 –
Statement by the pre-electoral delegation
07/10/2015 – A seven-member(*) cross-party
delegation of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe
(PACE) was in Ankara on 5 and 6 October 2015, at the invitation
of the Turkish delegation to PACE, for a pre-electoral visit ahead
of the early parliamentary elections on 1 November 2015.
The delegation notes that the early election campaign is being
conducted in a dramatically changed environment, compared to the
June 7 elections. These changes have been marked by: no single party
majority in parliament and failed attempts to form a coalition,
the suspension of the peace process, and the resumption of clashes
between the Turkish Security Forces and the PKK. These developments
have led to further polarization of, and tensions in the country.
The delegation welcomes the commitment expressed by all political
parties to the holding of fair elections, and considers that voters
will again be given a genuine choice. The delegation, however, expresses
serious concern about the situation of the media. It was informed
of instances of repeated intimidation, pressure and physical attacks
against journalists and media groups, culminating in the mobbing
of the Hürriyet offices on 6 and 8 September 2015, and the brutal
assault of its columnist Ahmet Hakan on 1 October 2015.
The delegation was also informed of a sharp rise in prosecutions
launched against critical voices, on charges of “defamation against
the President” (Article 299 of the Criminal Code) or “terrorism”,
as well as a number of restrictions on freedom of expression, including
on the internet and social media. The delegation is concerned that
this situation may hamper free democratic debate and freedom of
expression.
Security concerns also dominated the discussions during the
pre-electoral visit. The delegation condemns the politically-motivated
violence observed in recent weeks, including the attacks, within
two days, on 400 offices and workplaces of the HDP party, and some
AKP premises. It was also informed that a number of HDP members,
including Mayors, were arrested and detained in recent police operations,
which raises concerns. The delegation calls on all political stakeholders
to refrain from using, and take action against, verbal and physical
violence, and to take a responsible stand in the election campaign
to prevent any further escalation which would undermine democratic
processes.
With the Supreme Board of Elections (SBE), the delegation
also discussed possible measures to be taken to ensure the safety
and security of all voters. Particular attention was given to the
SBE’s recent decision not to allow the relocation of ballot boxes
from unsafe districts. The delegation was informed that pressure
might be exerted on voters in certain areas. The creation of a number
of “special temporary security zones” and curfews in areas predominantly
oriented towards voting for the HDP raises serious concerns that
this situation might spread fear among voters. The authorities assured
the delegation that all necessary steps would be taken to guarantee
security conditions, especially in the east and south-east of Turkey,
and to allow candidates to campaign, and citizens to cast their
vote, free from fear. The delegation considers that the monitoring
of elections by local and international observers in these disputed
areas, if security conditions allow, will enhance the transparency
of, and trust in, the election process.
Finally, the delegation recalls that a number of shortcomings
identified during the observation of the June 2015 elections remain
valid, such as the highly disproportionate coverage of different
political parties in State-owned media; the lack of judicial review
of SBE decisions; the lack of regulation of campaign and party funding;
and the impossibility for domestic NGOs to be registered as observers.
The active role of the President of the Republic in the campaign
period, despite constitutional provisions requiring him to exercise
his function in an unbiased manner, was also questioned. The delegation
reiterates the call made by PACE to lower the 10% threshold, which
has an impact on the lack of representativity of the parliament.
The delegation expresses the hope that the elections will
be fair and transparent, and allow for the expression of the will
of the citizens. It also welcomes the readiness and the increasing
capacity of a vibrant civil society to involve citizens in the monitoring
of these elections and to play an active part in the electoral process.
During its visit to Ankara, the delegation met with leaders
and representatives of the main political parties running in the
elections, members of the diplomatic corps in Ankara, the Head of
the OSCE/ODIHR Election Observation Mission, members of the Turkish
delegation to PACE, the Chairman and members of the Supreme Board
of Elections (SBE), representatives of the Ministry of the Interior,
the President and members of the Radio and Television Supreme Council
(RTSC), as well as representatives of civil society and the media.
A fully-fledged delegation of 32 PACE observers will return
to the country to observe the 1 November 2015 early election.
(*) Members of the pre-electoral delegation: Andreas Gross
(Switzerland, SOC), Head of the delegation; Volodymyr Ariev (Ukraine,
EPP/CD); Olena Sotnyk (Ukraine, ALDE); Christopher Chope (United
Kingdom, EC); Nikolaj Villumsen (Denmark, UEL); Ingebjorg Godskesen
(Norway, EC) and Natasa Vuckovic (Serbia, SOC), PACE co-rapporteurs
for the post-monitoring dialogue with Turkey
Appendix 3 –
Programme of the election observation mission (30 October-2 November
2015)
Friday
30 October 2015
09:00-10:00 Meeting of the PACE ad hoc committee:
- Information about the pre-electoral
mission by Mr Andreas Gross, Chairperson of the delegation
- Information from members of the pre-electoral mission
- Information on the electoral legislation, by Mr Srđan Darmanović,
Venice Commission, and Ms Amaya Ubeda de Torres, member of the Secretariat
- Practical and logistical information, Secretariat
10:15-10:30 Opening by the Heads of parliamentary delegations:
- Mr Ignacio Sánchez Amor, Special
Co-ordinator, OSCE short-term observers
- Mr Andreas Gross, Head of the PACE delegation
- Ms Margareta Cederfelt, Head of the OSCE-PA delegation
10:30-12:30 Briefing by the OSCE/ODIHR Limited Election Observation
Mission:
- Introduction and overview
of findings to date – Ambassador Geert-Hinrich Ahrens, Head of Mission
- Political overview and the campaign environment – Ms Martina
Barker-Cigániková, Political Analyst
- Legal framework and complaints – Ms Marla Morry, Legal
Analyst
- Media environment – Ms Elma Šehalić, Media Analyst
- Election administration and polling procedures – Mr Konrad
Olszewski, Election Analyst
- Questions and Answers
- Security Briefing, Q&A – Mr Wayne Pilgrim, Security
Expert
14:30-17:45 Meetings with party representatives:
- Mr Yıldız Seferinoğlu, President
of the Election Center, Justice and Development Party (AKP)
- Mr Erdal Aksünger, Chief Consultant to the Chairperson,
İzmir MP, Republican People’s Party (CHP)
- Mr Sırrı Süreyya Önder, Ankara MP, Peoples’ Democratic
Party (HDP)
18:00 Meeting with interpreters and drivers for the OSCE-PA
and PACE teams deployed in Ankara
Saturday 31 October
2015
09:30-10:30 Panel discussion with representatives of the media:
- Mr Ali Ünal, Ankara Representative, Daily Sabah
- Mr Arif Tekdal, Diplomacy correspondent, Today’s Zaman
- Ms Zeynep Gürcanlı, Ankara representative, Hurryiet
- Mr Ahmet Abakay, Chairperson, Progressive Journalists
Association
10:30-11:30 Panel discussion with representatives of civil
society:
- Ms Oya Özarslan,
Chairperson, Transparency International
- Mr Mehmet Pancaroğlu, Ankara Representative, Vote and
Beyond
- Ms Dilek Ertükel, Country Director, NDI
- Ms Hatice Kapusuz, Chairperson of KA.DER, Ankara
- Ms Feray Salman, General Co-ordinator, Human Rights Joint
Platform
11:30-12:00 Meeting with representatives of the Radio and
Television Supreme Council (RTSC):
- Mr İlker Ilgın, Vice-President
- Mr Emir Miracettin Ulucak, Head of the Monitoring and
Evaluation Department
- Mr Süleyman Demirkan, Member
- Mr Ersin Öngel, Member
12:00-12:30 Regional Briefing by OSCE/ODIHR LEOM long-term
observers deployed in Ankara:
- Ms
Jurga Lukšaitė-Roehling, LTO Co-ordinator
- Long-Term Observers – Team Ankara: Ms Linda Elisabeth
Beijlsmit and Ms Karin Bo Bergquist
Sunday 1 November
2015
07:30 Observation of the opening of the polling stations
08:00-17:00 Observation of the elections
17:00 Observation of the closing of the polling stations,
counting and presentation of results
Monday 2 November
2015
08:30-09:30 Meeting of the PACE ad hoc committee
Debriefing by the members of the ad hoc committee on the
election observation
14:00 Joint press conference
Appendix 4 –
Statement by the International Election Observation Mission (IEOM)
Elections
in Turkey offered voters variety of choices, but process was hindered
by challenging security environment, incidents of violence and restrictions
against media, international election observers say
Strasbourg, 02.11.2015 – The 1 November early parliamentary
elections in Turkey offered voters a variety of choices. At the
same time, the challenging security environment, particularly in
the southeast of the country, coupled with a high number of violent
incidents, including attacks against party members, premises and campaign
staff, hindered contestants’ ability to campaign freely, international
observers said in a statement issued today. Restrictions on media
freedom remain a serious concern, the observers said.
“While Turkish citizens could choose between genuine and strong
political alternatives in this highly polarised election, the rapidly
diminishing choice of media outlets, and restrictions on freedom
of expression in general, impacted the process and remain serious
concerns,” said Ignacio Sánchez Amor, Special Co-ordinator and Leader
of the short-term OSCE observer mission. “Physical attacks on party
members, as well as the significant security concerns, particularly
in the southeast, further imposed restrictions on the ability to campaign.”
A major terrorist bomb attack in Ankara on 10 October significantly
affected the atmosphere and conduct of the campaign, with all political
parties temporarily suspending campaign activities. Most contestants
could convey their messages to the electorate in a campaign atmosphere
that was polarised between the ruling party and other contestants,
and confrontational rhetoric was common, the statement says. The
last two weeks of the campaign were marked by an increased number
of attacks against and arrests of members and activists, who were
predominantly from the People’s Democratic Party (HDP).
“Unfortunately, the campaign for these elections was characterized
by unfairness and, to a serious degree, fear,” said Andreas Gross,
Head of the PACE delegation. “In light of this, it is even more
vital that the president works for an inclusive political process
to deal with the problems facing Turkey, ensuring that all voices, including
those who lost these elections, are able to be heard.”
“The violence in the largely Kurdish southeast of the country
had a significant impact on the elections, and the recent attacks
and arrests of members and activists, predominantly from the HDP,
are of concern, as they hindered their ability to campaign,” said
Margareta Cederfelt, Head of the OSCE PA delegation. “For an election
process to be truly democratic, candidates need to feel that they
can campaign and voters need to feel that they can cast their ballots
in a safe and secure environment.”
While the media landscape comprises a variety of outlets,
undue legal restrictions on the freedom of expression remain in
place. Investigations against journalists and media outlets for
supporting terrorism or defamation of the president, the blocking
of websites, the forcible seizure of prominent media outlets and
the removal of several television stations from digital service
providers reduced voters’ access to a plurality of views and information,
the observers said. Media monitoring revealed that three out of
the five monitored national television stations, including the public
broadcaster, clearly favoured the governing party in their programming.
The elections were well organised by the election administration,
and the Supreme Board of Elections met all election deadlines. It
concluded that voting should be conducted in the areas affected
by violence, and a significant number of polling stations were relocated
in a number of neighbourhoods by district election boards, in line
with the decision.
If implemented fully and effectively, the legal framework
is generally conducive to holding democratic elections. However,
certain fundamental freedoms, including the right to vote and be
elected, are unduly restricted by the Constitution and legislation.
Previous recommendations, dating back to 2011, by the OSCE Office
for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights and by the Council
of Europe to address gaps and ambiguities have generally not been
addressed, the observers noted.
“Once again, our assessment, based on our observation over
the past five weeks is not simply black-and-white, and while there
were positive elements, there were also shortcomings,” said Ambassador
Geert-Hinrich Ahrens, Head of the OSCE/ODIHR limited election observation
mission. “I hope that the relevant authorities will consider the
message in today’s statement, as well as in the ODIHR final report
on these elections, and engage in substantive follow-up on the recommendations
the final report will make.”
In addition, the 10% threshold for parliamentary elections
limits political pluralism, while the system for determining the
number of seats per constituency results in significant differences
in the number of voters per seat, inconsistent with the principle
of equality of the vote, the statement says. In a positive step,
the freedom to campaign in any language was guaranteed by law in
2014.
The lack of judicial review of decisions by the Supreme Board
of Elections runs counter to the principle of the separation of
powers and prevents access to judicial remedy in electoral matters.
The Constitutional Court’s recent ruling that the Board’s decisions
cannot be reviewed even where fundamental rights and freedoms might have
been violated further restricted the opportunity for judicial redress,
the observers said.
Candidate registration was inclusive overall, providing voters
a diverse and genuine choice. However, candidacy restrictions against
those who have not completed compulsory military service or have
been convicted of any of a broad range of crimes, including minor
criminal offences, are incompatible with the fundamental right to
stand for election, the statement says.
There was general confidence in the voter register, the observers
noted. However, the restrictions on voting by conscripts, students
in military schools and prisoners are not in line with OSCE commitments
and other international standards, they said.
Women played an active role in the campaign, although they
remain under-represented in political life. While the Constitution
guarantees gender equality, there are no special legal obligations
for the parties to nominate women candidates. On a positive note,
some parties implemented gender quotas and introduced affirmative measures
to enhance the participation of women. Approximately 24% of candidates
on party lists were female, although not in higher positions.
Election Day was generally peaceful, and in the limited number
of polling stations observed, voting was largely organised in an
efficient manner, although observers were asked to leave in seven
polling stations, and there were instances of citizen observers
accredited on behalf of political parties being denied access. Counting procedures
were assessed as transparent and well organised, although there
were some instances where procedures prescribed by law were not
followed.
