Observation of the parliamentary elections in Turkey (12 June 2011)
Election observation report
| Doc. 12701
| 05 September 2011
1 Introduction
1. The Bureau of the Parliamentary Assembly, at its
meeting on 10 March 2011, decided – subject to the receipt of an
invitation from the competent Turkish authorities – to observe the
parliamentary elections to be held in Turkey on 12 June 2011.
2. The Bureau constituted an ad hoc committee for this purpose,
composed of 30 members, and authorised a pre-electoral mission composed
of five members (one from each political group) to be carried out approximately
one month before the elections. The Bureau appointed me as Chairperson
of the ad hoc committee.
3. On 8 April 2011, the Chairperson of the Turkish delegation
to the Assembly, Mr Erol Aslan Cebeci, extended a formal invitation
to observe the elections.
4. Based on proposals by the political groups in the Assembly,
the ad hoc committee was composed as follows:
- Group of the European People’s Party (EPP/CD):
- Pedro AGRAMUNT, Spain
- Jean-Charles GARDETTO, Monaco
- Pavol KUBOVIČ, Slovak Republic
- Janusz RACHOŃ, Poland
- Giacomo SANTINI, Italy
- Giuseppe SARO, Italy
- Leander SCHÄDLER, Liechtenstein
- Elkhan SULEYMANOV, Azerbaijan
- Latchezar TOSHEV*, Bulgaria
- Socialist Group (SOC):
- Arcadio
DÍAZ TEJERA, Spain
- Andreas GROSS, Switzerland
- Josette DURRIEU, France
- Pietro MARCENARO, Italy
- Patrick MORIAU, Belgium
- Lord John TOMLINSON, United Kingdom
- Marek WIKIÍNSKI, Poland
- Gisela WURM, Austria
- Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE):
- Michael HANCOCK, United Kingdom
- Rafael HUSEYNOV, Azerbaijan
- Kerstin LUNDGREN, Sweden
- Andrea RIGONI, Italy
- Chiora TAKTAKISHVILI, Georgia
- European Democrat Group (EDG):
- Zmago JELENČIČ PLEMENITI, Slovenia
- Sergey MARKOV, Russian Federation
- Ganira PASHAYEVA, Azerbaijan
- Ivan SAVVIDI, Russian Federation
- Group of the Unified European Left (UEL):
*
only participated in the pre-electoral mission
5. The Secretariat support was provided by Mr Vladimir Dronov,
Head of Secretariat, Interparliamentary Cooperation and Election
Observation, Mr Bogdan Torcatoriu, Administrative Officer, Ms Danièle
Gastl and Ms Nicola Stemp, Assistants. Mr Dronov and Ms Gastl also
took part in the pre-electoral mission.
6. The pre-electoral mission took place on 17 and 18 May 2011,
with the participation of Mr Toshev, Mr Díaz Tejera, Mr Hunko and
myself. Regrettably, the European Democrat Group was not represented
due to a last-minute cancellation.
7. The pre-electoral delegation had meetings with the Chairperson
of the Supreme Board of Elections (SBE), representatives of political
parties running in these elections, and the European Union Ambassador
to Turkey, as well as with a cross-section of civil society and
the media. The working programme of the pre-electoral delegation
appears in Appendix 1.
8. The findings and conclusions of the pre-electoral delegation
are reflected in its press statement issued at a press conference
at the end of the visit (Appendix 2).
9. The ad hoc committee visited Ankara from 9 to 13 June 2011
and had a similar briefing programme (Appendix 3).
10. For the briefing programme, the ad hoc committee was joined
by an observer delegation from the Parliamentary Assembly of the
OSCE.
11. On the election day, the ad hoc committee split into 16 teams
which observed the elections in and around Ankara, Antalya, Diyarbakir,
Gaziantep, Istanbul, Izmir, Trabzon and Van. Altogether, the voting
and vote count were observed in more than 180 polling stations.
12. The ad hoc committee concluded that the 12 June 2011 parliamentary
elections in Turkey were, well-managed, democratic and they demonstrated
pluralism. However, it considered there is still a need for improvements
on fundamental freedoms. The press statement issued the day after
the elections appears in Appendix 4
13. The ad hoc committee wishes to thank the Turkish authorities,
in particular the Turkish delegation to the Assembly, for the support
and co-operation given to the ad hoc committee in accomplishing
its mission.
2 Political
and legal context
14. On 3 March 2011, the Turkish unicameral parliament
(the Grand National Assembly) set the date for parliamentary elections
for 12 June 2011, in order to elect its 550 members for a four-year
term.
15. In 2007, three political parties had cleared the 10% electoral
threshold for parliamentary representation. The Justice and Development
Party (AKP) gained the largest number of mandates – 341 – allowing
it to form a majority government and to elect its candidate as President
in August 2007. The Republican People’s Party (CHP) obtained 99
seats and became the main opposition party, followed by the Nationalist
Movement Party (MHP) with 70 seats. Twenty-six independent candidates
were also elected, 20 of which represented the pro-Kurdish Democratic
Society Party (DTP), and formed their own political group. However,
the Constitutional Court banned the DTP in December 2009; most of
the parliamentarians concerned subsequently joined the successor
Peace and Democracy Party (BDP) and again formed a parliamentary
group. The remainder of the seats were split among smaller parties
and independent candidates.
16. The legal framework for the conduct of elections includes
the Constitution and a range of special laws. The former was amended
in the years following the 2007 elections. In addition, provisions
related to the disclosure and scrutiny of political party finances
were further detailed, clearer regulations on media obligations and
the use of printed campaign materials were introduced, parties were
granted the right to receive copies of protocols at all polling
stations, and the restriction on the use of languages other than
Turkish was eased.
17. However, certain restrictive elements that were deemed problematic
in the 2007 elections have not undergone significant revision and
continue to constrain, in particular, the activities of the media
and political parties. The Turkish legal framework continues to
prohibit, in a manner deemed disproportionate by many, activities
that might be perceived as insulting “Turkishness”, state bodies
and institutions, national and moral values of the community and
reforms and principles of Atatürk, inciting enmity or hatred among
the population, and promoting terrorist organisations. These provisions,
therefore, continue to constrain activities of the media and political
parties, in particular, as shown in a number of cases filed against
Turkey with the European Court of Human Rights (hereafter “the Court”)
on freedom of expression, association and assembly.
18. In January 2011, the Parliamentary Assembly expressed its
concern with regard to the delayed implementation by Turkey of Court
decisions and pointing to “major systemic deficiencies” that caused repeated
violations of the European Convention on Human Rights (
Resolution 1787 (2011)).
19. In March 2011, the European Parliament also called on the
Turkish authorities to adjust legislation to comply with Court decisions
(European Parliament Resolution of 9 March 2011 on Turkey’s 2010
Progress Report (P7-TA-Prov (2011) 090)).
20. In September 2010, a referendum initiated by the AKP was held
and resulted in the adoption of a number of important constitutional
changes. While the European Commission for Democracy through Law
(Venice Commission) was not officially asked for its opinion on
the proposal, the relevant text was prepared taking into account
reports and opinions of the Venice Commission. The Venice Commission
was asked by the Ministry of Justice to assist in the drafting of
the implementing legislation. The authorities presented this as
bringing the Constitution into compliance with European standards,
improving respect for individual and human rights, increasing access
of the public to courts, limiting the power of military courts and
paving the way for reform of the judiciary. Opponents of the referendum,
for their part, regarded the adopted amendments as a disguised attempt
by the governing party to enhance its authority, including over
the judiciary.
21. Following the referendum, the AKP announced that it planned
to launch the process of drafting the new constitution after the
2011 parliamentary elections. The stated intention is to review
the 1980 Constitution currently in force and to eliminate inconsistencies
that have resulted from frequent amendments in recent years. The
authorities have stated that they envisage a broad and inclusive
process of public consultations on drafts and plan to seek input
from across the political spectrum. In this connection, many interlocutors
insisted that the central issue of these elections was whether or
not the winning party would gain an absolute majority allowing it
to adopt the new constitution without substantive consultations
with other political players.
22. The current constitution prohibits the application of amendments
to the legal framework one year before elections, which is in full
compliance with Council of Europe recommendations.
23. Voting is compulsory in Turkey. Failure to exercise this civil
duty entails a fine of 20 Turkish lira (approximately € 9). This
provision is, however, rarely enforced.
3 Election administration,
voter and candidate registration
24. In Turkey, elections are administered under the general
supervision of the judiciary.
25. The elections of 12 June 2011 were administered by a four-tiered
structure, comprising the Supreme Board of Elections (SBE), Provincial
Election Boards (PEBs), District Election Boards (DEBs) and Ballot
Box Committees (BBCs). The election administration was primarily
composed of senior judges, but allowed for the representation of
political parties. The SBE enjoyed broad public confidence and was
generally assessed as performing its duties in a professional and
efficient manner. However, its decision not to introduce voting
at diplomatic and consular representations abroad drew considerable
criticism. The SBE assessed that Turkish representations abroad
were not prepared to organise voting uniformly, not least given
the shortage of time for the preparations. It maintained provisions
for the establishment of polling stations for voters registered
as residing abroad at border crossing customs points. Twenty-five
such polling stations were established allowing for early voting
starting from 10 May by voters included in foreign country resident
voter lists and travelling to or from Turkey in the period preceding
the elections. In order to prevent multiple voting, voters were
marked as such in the online voter register to which all border
crossing polling stations were connected, and their passports were
stamped.
26. The decision concerning diaspora voting was widely criticised,
not least by the Prime Minister, as compromising the universality
of the suffrage.
27. As far as candidates’ registration is concerned, on 18 April
2011, the SBE rejected 12 independent candidatures, based on the
fact that the 12 candidates had been convicted in the past in connection
with terrorist activities. This decision restricted the chances
of the Peace and Democracy Party (BDP) to be represented in the
parliament as all independent candidates were either members or
supporters of the BDP. Following strong reactions from the general
public and politicians, notably Prime Minister Erdoğan, the SBE reconsidered
its decision and, on 21 April, it announced that 7 of the 12 candidates
would be allowed to run in the elections. Subsequently, one of these
seven withdrew his candidacy. It was widely believed that the SBE, in
rejecting registrations, acted in accordance with the letter of
the Law, which, in its turn, implied that legislative improvements
were needed.
28. Voters’ lists for the elections were prepared by the SBE,
based on extracts from a nationwide electronic civil registration
system that linked voters’ registered residence with a unique personal
identification number. A number of issues were raised with regard
to the voter registration system, including concerns related to
the short period of public scrutiny.
29. On election day, voters exercised their right to vote upon
presentation of their personal identification number. This number
is included not only in official identification documents, but also
in bank statements, commercial contracts and utility bills, all
of which can be accepted as proof of voter identity on election
day provided they include, or are accompanied by, a document that
contains the voter’s name and a photograph. Despite the fact that
personal identification numbers have been in use since 2000, the
Ministry of the Interior estimated in the spring of 2011 that approximately
1% of the population still did not have the number and might, therefore,
be unable to vote. To alleviate this problem, the Ministry of the
Interior carried out a public information campaign on television
encouraging citizens to follow simple procedures to obtain the personal
identification number ahead of the elections.
30. For the 2011 elections, the SBE introduced a number of novelties.
For the first time, transparent ballot boxes were used. Voters’
fingers were no longer inked. The SBE also made efforts to ensure
the accessibility of polling stations to voters with disabilities.
People with disabilities could inform electoral administrators beforehand
and their names would thus be included on the lists of polling stations
located on the ground floor of a building hosting numerous BBCs.
Those who had failed to do so could still vote in polling stations
on the ground floor and their enveloped ballot papers, after the
vote, were to be delivered by electoral administrators to the polling
stations concerned. However, it transpired during our observation
that there was little clarity among electoral administrators and
public at large with regard to these new provisions.
31. The ad hoc committee noted with satisfaction the possibility
given to prisoners to vote in detention centres, as one of the Assembly
observers saw in Van in south-eastern Turkey.
32. There was a high degree of confidence in the integrity of
the electoral process, including election day procedures at the
level of polling stations. However, certain concerns were shared
by some opposition political party and civil society representatives
regarding the transfer of results from BBCs to DEBs on election
night in rural areas, and their entry into the electronic tabulation
system at DEBs. The SBE stated that these concerns should be alleviated
by recent amendments entitling political party representatives to
receive copies of BBC results (limited to representatives of three
parties chosen by lot by the respective BBC). The independent candidates
were at a disadvantage in that they could not obtain state funding
for their election-related activities.
4 The campaign period
and media environment
33. As a broad range of political parties and independent
candidates ran for the 12 June 2011 elections, the campaign was
dynamic and drew significant public interest. The elections were
hard-fought and divisive, not least due to the growing polarisation
of the Turkish society. The ad hoc committee welcomes the possibility which
was given to candidates in these elections to conduct campaigns
in languages other than Turkish, which constitutes a positive move.
34. The unilateral ceasefire declared by the PKK in August 2010
was generally respected, despite threats articulated in March 2011
that it could be ended due to what was described by Kurdish militants
as the authorities’ failure to conduct a dialogue with the Kurds.
This inevitably contributed to mounting tensions.
35. Reports of violence, harassment, imprisonment and detention
of Kurdish opposition supporters, including elected officials, and
a loss of life in the east and south-east of the country further
compounded the situation.
36. The pre-electoral period was marred by outbreaks of violence
with at least 50 people reportedly killed; a powerful (36 kg of
explosives) remote-controlled bomb was defused on the eve of the
Prime Minister’s visit to the south-eastern areas of the country
bordering on Iraq, there were attacks on offices of independent candidates
supporting the Labour, Democracy and Freedom Block in Istanbul,
Toroslar, Mersin and other locations. An Istanbul candidate, Mr
Őnder, was personally attacked. It was reported that the police
took no action.
37. The media environment is diverse in Turkey. Political parties
contesting the elections were entitled to use free airtime on the
Turkish Radio and Television Corporation (TRT) to present their
electoral platforms. For the first time, parties and candidates
were able to purchase broadcast time for political advertisements.
Political parties were granted free airtime in the final week of
the campaign on the state-owned public television channel. Additional
airtime was granted to parties proportionally, based on votes received
in the last elections. Opposition parties claimed they had significantly
less exposure to the media than the ruling party. Independent candidates
do not qualify for free airtime and thus find themselves in the
least favourable situation. Compliance with media-related regulations
was monitored by the Radio and Television Supreme Council (RTSC).
The RTSC’s reports were reviewed by the SBE, which had the authority
to impose sanctions for violations. However, concerns were expressed
over a perceived deterioration of the media environment, pressure
on media outlets and journalists, and self-censorship. Negative
campaigning in connection with an alleged sex scandal was reported.
On 2 May 2011, the Turkish Constitutional Court amended the press
law to extend the statute of limitations for filing criminal cases
against journalists from two months to eight years. This ruling
has been cited by many observers as putting journalists under the
permanent threat of a criminal lawsuit.
5 Complaints and
appeals
38. Decisions of the SBE are not subject to appeal. In
this connection, the SBE’s own decision to reinstate some independent
candidates it had earlier rejected was welcome, but it did raise
some legal questions.
39. The ad hoc committee heard the following complaints from its
interlocutors.
40. The main issue raised by the opposition was the 10% threshold
for political party representation in parliament. This threshold
is the highest in Europe and is clearly limiting the representative
nature of the legislature in Turkey. It also affects the diversity
of political discourse in the country.
41. Questions were raised by opposition parties with regard to
a remarkable increase in the number of registered voters (10 million)
in recent years and also with regard to the printing of a disproportionally
high number of ballot papers.
42. As the Turkish law does not allow domestic observers (other
than party representatives) to observe the elections, those NGOs
who had applied for accreditations had seen their applications rejected.
43. There are still more than 50 journalists imprisoned in Turkey,
some of them being investigated due to their alleged connections
with an attempted coup. Media representatives informed the ad hoc
committee about the permanent need for self-censorship. Business
interests also play an extremely important role in the general orientations
of media.
44. Issues related to religion and ethnicity had been used (according
to the opposition parties) as a subtle tool for electoral propaganda.
45. The BDP representative insisted on the discrimination induced
by the 10% threshold in financing the electoral campaign of the
political parties from public funds (only the parties which passed
the threshold are entitled to the financial support from the state).
Although they had a political group within the parliament they were
excluded from support.
6 Election day –
vote, vote count and tabulation of results
46. On election day, voting generally took place in a
calm and relaxed atmosphere. In contrast, in the South-East heavy
police presence was reported. Police reportedly used tear gas to
disperse a cheering crowd in Van after the closure of the vote.
The ad hoc committee regretted that local non-partisan NGOs were
not allowed to observe the vote.
47. Transparent ballot boxes were used for the first time. In
order to preclude any pressure on the voters, no cameras or mobile
phones were allowed in the booths.
48. Observers were generally granted access to the overwhelming
majority of polling stations visited. In isolated cases they, or
their interpreters, were not granted access. These facts were duly
reported to the SBE. Some electoral officials were uneasy about
having international observers do their job, in particular insisting that
any such observation calls for reciprocity.
49. Opening and voting procedures were duly followed in most polling
stations visited by Parliamentary Assembly observers. The vote count
was done efficiently, not least because the average number of votes
per BBC did not exceed 300.
50. The results of the elections are reproduced in Appendix 5.
7 Conclusions
and recommendations
51. Turkey’s democratic, well-managed elections demonstrated
pluralism, but also showed a need for improvements in fundamental
freedoms.
52. It was brought to the attention of the rapporteur a week after
the elections that a Kurdish candidate from Diyarbakir, Hatip Dicle,
currently in detention, who successfully made it into parliament,
was subsequently denied a seat in it by the SBE, a decision upheld
by the Appeals Court, because of what was qualified as “propaganda
in favour of a terrorist organisation”.
53. It should further be noted, that other elected members of
CHP and BDP, who received permission to run in the elections, were
also subsequently denied seats. This led the CHP and BDP members
to refuse to swear the oath on 28 June 2011 and thus boycott the
parliament. CHP members subsequently took up their seats.
54. The case of Mr Dicle and of other candidates raises questions
regarding validation and denial of registration by the SBE and the
reversal its decisions after complaints. The ad hoc committee, while
stressing the need to abide by the separation of powers, encourages
the authorities to clarify the electoral provisions in order to
avert similar situations in the future.
55. The ad hoc committee welcomes the overall professionalism
and dedication of electoral administrators.
56. The ad hoc committee reiterates the Assembly's recommendation
to lower the existing 10% threshold, to avoid in the future the
distortions it creates in the representative nature of the elected
legislature.
57. The ad hoc committee encourages the authorities to ensure
the exercise of the right to vote by Turkish citizens residing abroad
through polling arrangements in the diplomatic and consular representations.
58. All political stakeholders should abstain from confrontationist
practices. Disproportionate use of force and the practice of detentions,
including detentions of elected officials, should be avoided. The
ad hoc committee underlines the need for zero tolerance of terrorist
activities.
59. The media should be granted freedom of expression. The relatively
constraining legal framework should be revised. Clear and unambiguous
rules regarding media freedom and freedom of expression need to
be introduced.
60. The new Turkish Parliament may wish to consider passing new
legislation that would allow local non-partisan observers to be
involved in the process. This would help further enhance transparency
and public confidence in the electoral process.
61. The issue of the still insufficient participation and representation
of women in politics should also be addressed in order to ensure
equal opportunities. The improvement during this election, demonstrated
by the number of seats held by women increasing from 46 to 78, should
be seen as a first step.
62. Voting conditions for the disabled should be further improved,
possibly through the introduction of mobile ballot box voting for
the disabled.
63. The ad hoc committee calls on the new Turkish Parliament to
pass, without delay, laws to further improve the electoral system.
This should be done in consultation with all political players and
the involvement of the Venice Commission, if need be.
64. The Parliamentary Assembly stands ready to assist Turkey in
its efforts to bring about broader democracy.
Appendix 1 – Pre-electoral
mission (17-18 May 2011)
Programme
Tuesday, 17 May
2011
09.00 Opening of the meeting of the ad hoc committee
09.45 Briefing by Ambassador Marc Pierini, Head of the European
Union Delegation in Turkey
11.00 Meeting with Mr Ali Em, Chairperson of the Supreme Board
of Elections
12.00 Meeting with political parties:
- The Peace and Democracy Party (BDP)
13.00 Meeting with the Delegation of Turkey to Parliamentary
Assembly of the Council of Europe
Meeting with political parties (continued)
14.30 The Justice and Development Party (AK Party)
15.40 The Republican People’s Party (CHP)
17.00 Round table with NGO representatives:
- Ms Feray Salman, Human Rights
Joint Platform
- Mr Öztürk Türkdoğan, President, Human Rights Association
- Mr Ayşegül Bahçivan, Equal Rights Watch
- Mr Musa Akkum, Helsinki Citizens Assembly – Turkey
- Ms Emma Sinclair-Webb, Human Rights Watch
- Mr Özcan Çine, Union of Bar Associations
Wednesday, 18
May 2011
10.00 Ad hoc committee meeting
11.00 Round table with media representatives:
- Hürriyet Newspaper
- Today’s Zaman
- CNN-Türk
- TRT
13.00 Press conference
Appendix 2 – Parliamentary
elections in Turkey: statement by the PACE pre-electoral delegation
Strasbourg, 18.05.2011 – A four-member, cross-party
delegation1 of the Parliamentary Assembly
of the Council of Europe (PACE) making a pre-electoral visit to
Turkey ahead of the 12 June parliamentary elections has welcomed
the sound economic progress achieved in Turkey since the 2007 parliamentary
elections.
“There is a vibrant civil society in the country and, in a
welcome development – since electronic media can now broadcast in
languages other than Turkish only – campaigning is now allowed in
those languages as well. The Supreme Board of Elections (SBE) is
acting in an efficient and transparent manner and, seemingly, in
full compliance with the letter of the law. Some legislative amendments
introduced since 2007, albeit not yet all-encompassing, have paved
the way for a better and more transparent electoral process.
At the same time the media, while generally believed to be
free, are reportedly applying self-censorship for fear of falling
victim to a broad interpretation of the anti-terrorist legislation.
The candidate registration process, even though carried out in accordance
with the letter of the existing legislation, has resulted in a situation
where a number of candidates were initially denied registration,
a decision promptly reversed by the SBE with regard to some of those
candidates after a public uproar. This is a clear indication that
the relevant legal basis is in need of further improvements. In
addition, the application of the relevant legislation must be carried
out in good faith.
Reports of growing tension, violence, harassment, imprisonment
and detention of Kurdish opposition supporters, including elected
officials, and a loss of life in the east and south-east of the
country give rise to grave concerns. We call upon all political
stakeholders to refrain from acts of violence.
Overall, it is widely believed that while the elections will
be free, their fairness is open to improvement, not least given
the unequal conditions for the contenders.
In this regard, the ten per cent threshold, by far the highest
among the Council of Europe member states, remains the central issue
that limits the representative nature of the legislature.
We expect Turkey to take corrective action and stand ready
to extend assistance as needed. We hope that the forthcoming 12
June elections will be held democratically, in an orderly, peaceful
and non-violent environment.”
The delegation was in Ankara from 17 to 18 May 2011 at the
invitation of the Turkish delegation to PACE. It held meetings with
the Chairman of the SBE, representatives of political parties running
in this election and the EU Ambassador to Turkey, as well as a representative
cross-section of civil society and the media. PACE observers will
return to the country with a 30-member delegation to observe the
12 June elections.
__________
1 Kerstin Lundgren (Sweden, ALDE),
Head of the Delegation, Latchezar Toshev (Bulgaria, EPP/CD), Arcadio Díaz
Tejera (Spain, SOC), and Andrej Hunko (Germany, UEL).
Appendix 3 – Programme
Friday, 10 June
2011
09.00 – 09.30 Opening of the meeting of the ad hoc committee
09.30 – 10.15 Statements by Ms Kerstin Lundgren, Head of the
Delegation of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe,
Ms Pia Christmas-Moeller, Head of the Delegation of the Parliamentary
Assembly of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe
(OSCE PA) and Mr Alaattin Büyükkaya, Chairperson of the Turkish
Delegation to the OSCE PA
10.15 – 11.00 Briefing by Mr Michele Villani, Chargé d’affaires
of the European Union Delegation in Turkey and Ms Cayetana de Zulueta,
Head of the OSCE/ODIHR Limited Mission in Turkey
11.00 – 12.00 Meeting with Mr Mehmet Kürtül, Member of the
Supreme Board of Elections
12.00 – 12.45 Meeting with Mr Haluk Ipek, Deputy Chairman,
Justice and Development Party (AKP)
14.00 – 14.45 Meeting with Ms Gülsün Bilgehan (Deputy Chairperson)
and Mr Izzet Çetin, Deputy Chairman of the Republican People’s Party
(CHP)
14.45 – 15.30 Meeting with Mr Tuğrul Türkeş, Member of the
Turkish Delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council
of Europe, Nationalist Movement Party (MHP)
15.30 – 16.15 Meeting with Mr Deniz Zarakolu, Peace and Democracy
Party (BDP)
16.30 – 17.30 Round table with media representatives:
- Hürriyet Online, Ms Zeynep Gürcanli
- TARAF, Mr Mithat Sahkar
- TRT, Mr Ali Ahmet Böken
- Supreme Board of Turkish Radio and TV, Mr Nurullah Öztürk
17.30 – 18.30 Round table with:NGO representatives:
- Mr Dilek Ertukel, Country Director,
National Democratic Institute (NDI)
- Ms Feray Salman, Human Rights Joint Platform (IHOP)
- Mr. Hüsnü Öndül, Legal Advisor of IHOP
- Ms Levent Korkut, Civil Society Development Center (Chair
of the Board) and Steering Board member of IHOP
- Mr Öztürk Türkdoğan, President, Human Rights Association
- Ms Seda Alp, Equal Rights Watch
- Mr Nejat Taştan, Equal Rights Watch
- Mr S. Erdem Türközü, Human Rights Foundation
- Mr Musa Akkum, Helsinki Citizens Assembly
- Ms İlknur Üstün, Women Coalition
- Mr Ahmet Faruk Ünsal, Mazlumder
- Mr Özcan Çine, Union of Bar Associations
18.45 Meeting with drivers and interpreters for teams in and
around Ankara
Saturday, 11
June 2011
Deployment to the regions
Sunday, 12 June
2011
Observation of the parliamentary elections
Monday, 13 June
2011
09.00 Meeting of the ad hoc committee
11.00 Press conference
Appendix 4 – Turkey’s well-managed,
democratic elections demonstrated pluralism, but also showed a need
for improvements on fundamental freedoms
Strasbourg, 13.06.2011 – The 12 June 2011
elections to the Turkish Grand National Assembly demonstrated that
recent changes enacted by the Turkish government have improved the
electoral system, yet there were some worrying developments, especially
regarding freedom of expression, including media freedom. The electoral
process was generally characterized by pluralism and a vibrant civil
society. Voting and counting observed on Election Day showed a mostly
calm and professionally-managed process.
Some elements of the legal framework continue to constrain
activities of the media and political parties by limiting freedom
of speech.
The 10 percent threshold for political party representation
in Parliament – the highest in the OSCE region – remains one of
the central issues that limit the representative nature of the legislature.
For the first time, contestants were allowed to buy political
advertisements. Political parties are granted free airtime in the
final week of the campaign on the main state-owned public television
channel; additional airtime is granted to parties proportionally
based on votes received in the last elections. Independent candidates
do not qualify for free airtime and opposition parties claimed that
they receive significantly less coverage in Turkish media compared
to the governing party.
The registration of political parties and independent candidates
offered voters genuine choices. The practical allowance for the
use of other languages, including Kurdish, in political campaigning
is an important change this year that strengthened the country’s
pluralistic, democratic debate.
Government control over influential media groups allegedly
resulted in biased reporting and self-censorship, but journalists
and NGOs said business interests also limit media freedom. Observers
noted the detention and ongoing investigations of more than 50 journalists
in Turkey, some linked to alleged connections with an attempted
coup. Limiting freedom of the media is a violation of the 1990 Copenhagen
Document and a host Council of Europe documents. On 2 May 2011 the
Turkish Constitutional Court amended the Press Law to extend the
statute of limitations for filing criminal cases against journalists
from two months to eight years. This ruling has been cited by many
observers, including the OSCE Rep-preventative on Freedom of the
Media, as putting journalists under the permanent threat of criminal
law-suits.
Procedures during the elections were generally well organized
and conducted in an orderly and professional fashion, even though
there were initial problems with the registration of some independent
candy-dates. The Supreme Board of Elections (SBE) enjoyed broad
public confidence and respect through its transparent, professional
and efficient administration of the election. Voters had to present
photo identification at polling stations. Transparent ballot boxes
were used for the first time. In a technical improvement, the SBE
had prepared voter lists for the elections based on a nationwide
electronic civil registration system that links a voter’s registered
residence with a unique personal identification number. However,
many stakeholders raised questions about remarkable changes in the
number of registered voters in recent years, and the printing of
a disproportionally high number of excess ballot papers.
Political parties had sufficient ability to convey their programs
to voters. The election campaign took place in a polarized environment.
The parliamentary observers welcomed the fact that the stakeholders
mostly exercised restraint even if there was heavy police presence
and tensions in parts of the South East, as well as isolated reports
of physical attacks. At the same time, many rallies with large crowds
of citizens occurred largely free of violence. Most importantly,
the election day was overall carried out without violence.
The counting observed was done efficiently and in compliance
with the existing regulations. Party representatives and observers
had access to the results in the polling stations.
There is a need to broadly promote more participation and
representation of women in the political life of the country. Less
than 9 per cent of the seats in the outgoing parliament were held
by women, and the candidate lists presented by the political parties
did not meet promises made; women never made up even 20 per cent of
the candidates on any party’s candidate list.
On Election Day, observers witnessed the opening of polling
stations, voting and the closing process, including the vote count.
Local election officials and poll workers appeared well-trained,
polling pro-ceded in a calm and well-organized manner. Turnout was
reported at 84 per cent.
In keeping with its OSCE and Council of Europe commitments,
Turkey invited parliamentarians from the OSCE and Council of Europe
to observe these elections. The observers were mostly granted access
to all levels of election administration and polling stations on
Election Day. In order to remove any uncertainty and to comply fully
with OSCE commitments, it is desirable that the law specifically
allow international observers access to national election proceedings.
The observation, bringing together more than 70 observers,
including 61 Members of Parliaments from 30 countries, was a joint
effort of delegations from the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization
for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE PA), led by OSCE PA
Vice-President, and Member of the Danish Parliament Pia Christmas-Moeller,
and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE),
led by Member of the Swedish Parliament Kerstin Lundgren.
Appendix 5 – Election results
in Turkey, 12 June 2011
|
Political
Parties
|
Number
of votes
|
Percentage
%
|
Number
of deputies
|
|
Justice and Development
Party
(Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi)
|
21.320.207
|
49.80
|
327
|
|
Democrat Party
(Demokrat
Parti)
|
278.775
|
0.65
|
|
|
Republican People’s Party
(Cumhuriyet
Halk Partisi)
|
11.122.420
|
25.98
|
135
|
|
Labor Party
(Emek
partisi)
|
31.766
|
0.07
|
|
|
Nation Party
(Millet
Partisi)
|
60.673
|
0.14
|
|
|
Liberal Democratic Party
(Liberal
Demokrat Party)
|
15.166
|
0.04
|
|
|
Felicity Party
(Saadet
Partisi)
|
541.470
|
1.26
|
|
|
Rights and Equality Party
(Hak
ve Eşitlik Partisi)
|
124.082
|
0.29
|
|
|
The People's Voice Party
(Halkın
Sesi Partisi)
|
329.358
|
0.77
|
|
|
Nationalist Movement
Party
(Milliyetçi Hareket Partisi)
|
5.575.010
|
13.02
|
53
|
|
True Path Party
(Doğru
Yol Partisi)
|
64.453
|
0.15
|
|
|
Turkish Communist Party
(Türkiye
Komunist Partisi)
|
63.786
|
0.15
|
|
|
Nationalist and Conservative
Party
(Milliyetçi ve Muhafazakar Partisi)
|
36.105
|
0.08
|
|
|
Great Union Party
(Büyük
Birlik Partisi)
|
322.819
|
0.75
|
|
|
Democratic Left Party
(Demokratik
Sol Parti
|
107.889
|
0.25
|
|
|
Independent
(Bağımsız)
|
2.819.917
|
6.59
|
35
|
Number of registered voters: 50.237.343
Number of votes cast: 43.785.665
Valid votes: 42.813.896
Invalid votes: 971.769
Turnout: 83.6%
Decision of the Supreme Board of Elections of 22 June 2011,
decision number 1070
This was published in the Official Gazette, 23 June 2011,
number 27973.
