In the May 14-28 elections, the "People's Alliance," which consists primarily of the AKP-MHP alliance, gained dominance in both the legislative and executive branches. This led to two significant developments in domestic politics. Firstly, Tayyip Erdoğan, who has returned to the presidency, has seemingly reinstated Mehmet Şimşek as the leader of the economy, aligning with the prevailing public expectations. In our previous editorial, we highlighted that "putting a particular person in charge of the economy cannot magically resolve economic issues" and that "the primary concern, as in all public spheres, is to repair the institutional damage caused in recent years."Although Mehmet Şimşek, who has been appointed as the Minister of Treasury and Finance, has made a sensible statement about the "program" he intends to implement, starting with the phrase "Turkey has no choice but to return to a rational ground," the initial indications in the economy, which do not inspire much optimism, almost validate our earlier prediction. The main reason for pessimism is the ongoing depreciation of the Turkish lira against the US dollar and the euro. Another reason for pessimism stems from President Erdoğan appointing former Central Bank Governor Şahap Kavcıoğlu, one of the individuals accountable for the unfavorable course of events, as the head of the BRSA without Şimşek's knowledge. This creates the impression that President Erdoğan will not allow Minister Şimşek to position his team in crucial roles within the economy and pursue a comprehensive and internally consistent policy.Likewise, President Erdoğan's announcement to maintain his previous approach to interest rates has also raised doubts about whether a fundamental structural transformation of the economy and public finance will be allowed, to repair institutional damage and restore stability. On the other hand, the appointment of Mehmet Şimşek as the head of the economy has not yielded the optimistic impact that markets and international organizations had anticipated. However, it is premature to be entirely pessimistic.The second significant development in domestic politics is that the election results have ignited new debates within the CHP, particularly regarding Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu's presidential position. It is not surprising that parties when they fail to achieve their desired outcome in general elections, question the party leaders and policies that are held responsible for the perceived "defeat." However, claiming that Kılıçdaroğlu's results in the presidential election, achieved through the alliance he formed, were a failure lacks a factual basis. In reality, Kılıçdaroğlu, as the joint candidate of the Millet Alliance, outperformed his party's previous candidate by 15 points in the 2018 presidential election and by 20 points in the May 14 election. It should be noted that these results were obtained under extremely unfair conditions. Furthermore, such success would have been unattainable with any other candidate contesting the presidential election besides Kılıçdaroğlu.However, those who confidently claim that Ekrem İmamoğlu, if nominated instead of Kılıçdaroğlu, would be more successful and win the presidency are merely indulging in wishful thinking. The debate within the CHP also seems to be less about genuine introspection aimed at identifying and addressing the real causes of the party's perceived "failure." Instead, it appears to be an attempt by a faction, which is uncomfortable with Kılıçdaroğlu's efforts to free the party from its long-standing narrow ideological constraints and the influence of certain factions, to seize control of the party by changing its chairman.If the CHP has any chance of "salvation," it lies not in the hands of politicians whose principles are unknown and who are predominantly supported by nationalists, but in the leadership of Kılıçdaroğlu. He has been actively pursuing a policy of loosening the ideological structure of the CHP, which has its roots in the single-party era and trying to broaden the party's appeal by using more inclusive language. While Kılıçdaroğlu's progress in this direction may not have been entirely satisfactory so far, it does not necessarily mean that any of the individuals mentioned in the news reports, even if they had embraced this goal (which is highly doubtful), would have been more successful than Kılıçdaroğlu.In addition to these developments in domestic politics, we must also consider a matter closely related to Turkey's foreign policy and the hopes of our society for a free and democratic future. This pertains to the recent developments in the Council of Europe's "infringement procedure," which has now become a protracted issue triggered by the unjust conviction of Osman Kavala, who has been detained since October 18, 2017. The Council of Europe's Committee of Ministers will reconvene in September to decide whether to suspend or expel Turkey from membership if Kavala is not released by then. Furthermore, the Committee has once again warned Turkey that it will initiate a "violation procedure" concerning Selâhattin Demirtaş.Political authorities and our judiciary need to understand the gravity of this situation. It is evident that if the Council of Europe decides to expel Turkey, the consequences would be disastrous for our country. This goes beyond a mere human rights issue; the political fallout of being labeled a consistent violator of human rights would result in increased isolation from Europe and closer alignment with authoritarian regimes such as Russia, Iran, and China. Such a scenario would not only shatter the hopes of our people for freedom and democracy but also lead to economic exclusion from the civilized world, leaving us as a struggling and impoverished society.Lastly, I would like to highlight a problem related to judicial justice, specifically individual applications made to the Constitutional Court. The Constitution and the relevant laws do not clearly outline the course of action the Constitutional Court should take when rights violations arise directly from the law itself, rather than from administrative or judicial decisions. This legal gap presents a significant challenge, and the current approach taken by the Court involves sending violation decisions to the Grand National Assembly of Turkey for legislative amendments. In the following article, our colleague A. Rıza Çoban discusses whether this approach provides a genuine solution and emphasizes the delays and difficulties it creates for individuals seeking to reclaim their violated rights.We hope to bring you more optimistic articles, news, and commentary in our upcoming issue.

public finance ile ilgili hikayeler