Greetings from the latest issue of The Freedom Observer,Here's what we've monitored for you this week:<ul fr-original-style="" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 1em; box-sizing: border-box;"><li fr-original-style="" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Constitution:&nbsp;What Does the Cybersecurity Law Proposal Introduce?,</li><li fr-original-style="" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Hotel Fire: Grand Kartal Hotel, State Capacity, and Government Priorities,</li><li fr-original-style="" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Economy: Cost Minimization and the Devaluation of Human Life.</li></ul>We wish you a pleasant reading,

We monitor the ongoings of Turkiye in the fields of the rule of law, economics, civil society, and politics.

The Freedom Observer

What Does the Cybersecurity Law Proposal Introduce?, Cost Minimization and the Devaluation of Human Life, Grand Kartal Hotel, State Capacity, and Government Priorities.

Grand Kartal Hotel and State Capacity

Greetings from the latest issue of The Freedom Observer,Here's what we've monitored for you this week:<ul fr-original-style="" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 1em; box-sizing: border-box;"><li fr-original-style="" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Constitution:&nbsp;Venice Commission's View on the HSK,</li><li fr-original-style="" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Local Governments: Trustees, Detentions, and Öcalan's Release,</li><li fr-original-style="" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Economy: Rising Taxes in the Era of Combating Inflation.</li></ul>We wish you a pleasant reading,

Venice Commission's View on the HSK, Rising Taxes in the Era of Combating Inflation, Trustees, Detentions, and Öcalan's Release.

Trustees, Detentions, and Öcalan's Release

Greetings from the latest issue of The Freedom Observer,Here's what we've monitored for you this week:<ul fr-original-style="" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 1em; box-sizing: border-box;"><li fr-original-style="" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Constitution:&nbsp;The Unpredictable Interpretation and Application of Anti-Terror Legislation,</li><li fr-original-style="" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Individual Freedom: A Blockade on Civil Society and Journalists: The "Foreign Agent" Regulation,</li><li fr-original-style="" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Economy: Private Hospitals and "Profit Motive".</li></ul>We wish you a pleasant reading,

The Unpredictable Interpretation and Application of Anti-Terror Legislation, Private Hospitals and "Profit Motive", A Blockade on Civil Society and Journalists: The "Foreign Agent" Regulation. 

"Foreign Agent" Law Blocks Civil Society

Greetings from the latest issue of The Freedom Observer,Here's what we've monitored for you this week:<ul fr-original-style="" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 1em; box-sizing: border-box;"><li fr-original-style="" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Constitution:&nbsp;Açık Radio Shut Down,</li><li fr-original-style="" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Individual Freedom: Geopolitical Risks as an Excuse, Tax Burden as the Reality,</li><li fr-original-style="" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Economy: What Does the 2024 Nobel Prize in Economics Tell Us?</li></ul>We wish you a pleasant reading,

Geopolitical Risks as an Excuse, Tax Burden as the Reality, What Does the 2024 Nobel Prize in Economics Tell Us?, Açık Radio Shut Down.

Açık Radio Shut Down

Greetings from the latest issue of The Freedom Observer,Here's what we've monitored for you this week:<ul fr-original-style="" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 1em; box-sizing: border-box;"><li fr-original-style="" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Constitution:&nbsp;Does Turkish Society Demand the Rule of Law?</li><li fr-original-style="" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Sinan Ateş Case: Verdict Announced in Sinan Ateş Case,</li><li fr-original-style="" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Economy: Mehmet Şimşek's Intervention in Cash Preferences.</li></ul>We wish you a pleasant reading,

Verdict Announced in Sinan Ateş Case, Mehmet Şimşek's Intervention in Cash Preferences, Does Turkish Society Demand the Rule of Law?

Does Turkish Society Demand the Rule of Law?

Greetings from the latest issue of The Freedom Observer,Here's what we've monitored for you this week:<ul fr-original-style="" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 1em; box-sizing: border-box;"><li fr-original-style="" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Constitution:&nbsp;The Constitutional Court's Latest Can Atalay Decision</li><li fr-original-style="" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Legislative: Normalization of Violence in the Parliament</li><li fr-original-style="" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Economy: Debate on Exchange Rate Intervention&nbsp;</li></ul>We wish you a pleasant reading,

The Constitutional Court's Latest Can Atalay Decision, Debate on Exchange Rate Intervention, Normalization of Violence in the Parliament.

Normalization of Violence in the Parliament

Greetings from the latest issue of The Freedom Observer,Here's what we've monitored for you this week:<ul fr-original-style="" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 1em; box-sizing: border-box;"><li fr-original-style="" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Individual Freedoms:&nbsp;Instagram Ban</li><li fr-original-style="" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Local Administrations: Foreclosures Against Opposition Municipalities</li><li fr-original-style="" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Economy: Black Monday and the Problem of Market Bailouts</li></ul>We wish you a pleasant reading,

Foreclosures Against Opposition Municipalities, Black Monday and the Problem of Market Bailouts, Instagram Ban.

Instagram Ban

Greetings from the latest issue of The Freedom Observer,Here's what we've monitored for you this week:<ul fr-original-style="" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 1em; box-sizing: border-box;"><li fr-original-style="" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Constitution:&nbsp;What is the Purpose of the Amendment to the Animal Protection Law?</li><li fr-original-style="" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Local Administrations: Erdoğan Opens a New Front Against CHP Municipalities: SGK Debts</li><li fr-original-style="" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Economy: Public Intervention in Currency and Its Results</li></ul>We wish you a pleasant reading,

Erdoğan Opens a New Front Against CHP Municipalities: SGK Debts, Public Intervention in Currency and Its Results, Purpose of the Animal Protection Law Amendment. 

Purpose of the Animal Protection Law Amendment

Greetings from the latest issue of The Freedom Observer,Here's what we've monitored for you this week:<ul fr-original-style="" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 1em; box-sizing: border-box;"><li fr-original-style="" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Constitution:&nbsp;What Does the 9th Judicial Package Bring?</li><li fr-original-style="" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Law: The Sinan Ateş Trial Has Started</li><li fr-original-style="" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Economy: The TURKSTAT Problem is Growing</li></ul>We wish you a pleasant reading,

The Sinan Ateş Trial Has Started, The TURKSTAT Problem is Growing, What Does the 9th Judicial Package Bring?

What Does the 9th Judicial Package Bring?

Greetings from the latest issue of The Freedom Observer,Here's what we've monitored for you this week:<ul fr-original-style="" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 1em; box-sizing: border-box;"><li fr-original-style="" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Constitution:&nbsp;Constitutional Court's Annulments on the Change of the Government System</li><li fr-original-style="" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Civil Liberties: Plans to Raise Exit Fees Abroad</li><li fr-original-style="" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Economy: What Does ISO 500 Tell Us?</li></ul>We wish you a pleasant reading,

Constitutional Court's Annulments on the Change of the Government System, Plans to Raise Exit Fees Abroad, What Does ISO 500 Tell Us?

Plans to Raise Exit Fees Abroad

Politika hakkında yayımlanan makaleler ve yayınlar

Politika

Sosyal farkındalık hakkında yayımlanan makaleler ve yayınlar

Sosyal Farkındalık

Ekonomi hakkında yayımlanmış makalaler ve yayınlar

Ekonomi

The Cybersecurity Law Proposal, submitted to the Turkish Grand National Assembly (TBMM) on January 10, 2025, addresses a highly significant issue and grants public authorities extensive powers to intervene in individual rights. However, despite its far-reaching implications, the proposal was rushed through the National Defense Committee and approved on January 15 without allowing for public debate. Additionally, no prior announcement was made before its submission to Parliament.Legislation concerning both national security and individual data protection must undergo thorough public discussion to ensure a balanced and rights-respecting framework. Any legal regulation in this field should be in line with technological advancements, respect human rights, meet national security requirements, and include safeguards against the abuse of power. This necessitates extensive deliberation among political parties, civil society organizations, experts, and other stakeholders. However, not only was this proposal not subjected to such a preparatory process, but it also appears to have been pushed toward legislation without allowing for proper debate in Parliament.Although the proposal was referred to the Justice Committee, the Plan and Budget Committee, and the Industry, Trade, Energy, Natural Resources, Information, and Technology Committee, in addition to the National Defense Committee, none of these secondary committees examined it or issued a report. This legislative approach is evidently neither democratic nor participatory.The stated purpose of the law is to establish a comprehensive legal framework for cybersecurity and to define related policies and strategies through the creation of a Cybersecurity Council. Accordingly, the law establishes a Cybersecurity Council and regulates the duties and powers of the Cybersecurity Directorate (SGB), which was previously established by Presidential Decree.Notably, Article 6 of the proposal grants the Directorate the authority to request and access all types of information and data within its jurisdiction. This data may include not only personal information, such as health and financial records but also logs of websites visited and digital content viewed or read by individuals. The proposal stipulates that the information, documents, data, and records obtained by the Directorate may be used for up to two years before being destroyed. However, the proposal does not include any safeguards to prevent the unnecessary collection, processing, or transfer of data, nor does it contain provisions to prevent abuse of such powers.Additionally, the Directorate is granted the power to collect, store, analyze, and prepare reports based on log records from information systems and to share these reports with relevant institutions and organizations. The only safeguard provided in the law regarding data protection is a requirement that the data be deleted once its purpose has been fulfilled. However, the law does not establish any oversight mechanisms to ensure compliance with the deletion requirement, nor does it provide any safeguards against the misuse of collected data.Additionally, the proposal mandates that public institutions, organizations, and critical infrastructure procure cybersecurity products, systems, and services only from cybersecurity experts and companies that have been authorized and certified by the Cybersecurity Directorate. Ensuring that this authorization and certification process is conducted objectively and impartially is of vital importance. Unfortunately, the law does not include any safeguards to guarantee such impartiality.Furthermore, Article 9 of the proposal grants the President of the Directorate the authority to order searches, data copying, and seizures in private residences, workplaces, and non-public spaces in cases where delays might be deemed harmful. These actions are subject to subsequent judicial approval, with a requirement that the collected data be destroyed if a judge refuses to authorize the operation. However, considering the state of the judiciary in general, and particularly the Criminal Peace Judgeships, the effectiveness of this safeguard is highly questionable. Moreover, when it comes to public institutions, even judicial approval is not required for searches and seizures. Such provisions, which grant authorities the power to intervene in individuals' private lives, personal data, and homes, clearly violate constitutional rights and are unquestionably unconstitutional.The proposal also introduces new criminal offenses. In this context, individuals who fail to provide the information requested by the Directorate, carry out cyberattacks, violate confidentiality obligations, or trade data obtained through cyber leaks will be subject to criminal penalties. Additionally, in a particularly problematic provision, the law criminalizes activities that aim to create the perception of a cyber leak, even if no actual data breach has occurred, thereby targeting individuals or institutions. While the phrase "creating a perception" was later amended in the Committee to "creating content as if a data breach had occurred," it is evident that this provision poses a serious threat to press freedom.Given these flaws, the proposal should be withdrawn and replaced with a law that is developed through a comprehensive participatory process and includes adequate safeguards against violations of fundamental rights.

The Cybersecurity Law Proposal, submitted to the Turkish Grand National Assembly (TBMM) on January 10, 2025, addresses a highly significant issue and grants public authorities extensive powers to intervene in individual rights. However, despite its far-reaching implications, the proposal was rushed through the National Defense Committee and approved on January 15 without allowing for public debate. Additionally, no prior announcement was made before its submission to Parliament.

What Does the Cybersecurity Law Proposal Introduce?

We have left behind an eventful two weeks. First, the government launched a campaign of detentions, arrests, and trustee appointments targeting certain opposition politicians and municipalities, with Ekrem İmamoğlu as the ultimate target. Beşiktaş Mayor Rıza Akpolat was arrested. CHP Youth Branch Chairman Cem Aydın was detained and later released after questioning. Meanwhile, Zafer Party Chairman Ümit Özdağ was arrested at a restaurant in Ankara for allegedly insulting the President during a speech in Antalya. He was transferred to Istanbul, and two days later, he was detained again—this time on charges of inciting hatred and enmity.Amid this political turmoil, a fire at the Grand Kartal Hotel in Kartalkaya claimed the lives of 79 citizens. The fact that the fire occurred during the semester holiday, with a high number of children staying at the hotel, only deepened the tragedy. Nearly half of the victims were under 18.The intense polarization and political rhetoric that had reached a peak before the fire quickly shifted focus in its immediate aftermath. The question "Who is responsible?" became not just a debate on social media but also the focal point of a blame game among state institutions. CHP's Bolu Mayor Tanju Özcan stated that the hotel was located outside the municipal jurisdiction. Minister of Culture and Tourism Mehmet Nuri Ersoy countered, claiming that the hotel had received a fire safety certificate from the fire department. However, Özcan denied this claim, stating that an inspection was conducted in December 2024 following the hotel's application and that multiple fire safety deficiencies were identified. However, since the hotel later withdrew its application, the municipality was legally unable to take further action. According to Özcan, the hotel subsequently obtained approval from a ministry-certified company just a few days later. Hotel owner Halit Ergül, in his testimony, claimed that the Ministry of Tourism inspected the hotel on December 15, 2024, and found issues with doors but did not identify any fire safety deficiencies. As of the writing of this article, 19 individuals, including the deputy mayor, have been detained in connection with the fire.How meaningful are these discussions after 78 people have already lost their lives? Of course, identifying those responsible and ensuring they receive the appropriate punishment is crucial. Administrative law experts have provided clear opinions on the division of responsibility in this debate. However, there is also widespread and justified public skepticism about whether anyone will actually be held accountable.This disaster has highlighted two major shortcomings in the country: the need for fair trials and the lack of state capacity. The administration is responsible for preventing such tragedies through regulatory measures, administrative actions, and inspections. Ensuring citizen safety is not just an incidental duty of the state—it is its primary, non-partisan responsibility, an essential element of its very existence. Can a state that fails to enforce its own laws still be called a state?Monopolizing the use of force is a necessary but insufficient condition for being a state. In Turkey, those in power are particularly fond of the state's monopoly on violence, yet they fail to recognize that when this monopoly ceases to be a means of establishing order and instead becomes a tool for eliminating political opponents, the state gradually loses its legitimacy. At the end of the day, we are faced with a stark contradiction: an administration and a judiciary that demonstrate immediate capacity and resolve to launch an investigation against an opposition politician within an hour of a speech yet take no concrete steps to identify the failure of a fire alarm system in a hotel accommodating hundreds of people.So what should the true priorities of a state, an administration, and a government be? How should existing state capacity be utilized? Should it be used to imprison opposition politicians, or to ensure the safety of citizens?

So what should the true priorities of a state, an administration, and a government be? How should existing state capacity be utilized? Should it be used to imprison opposition politicians, or to ensure the safety of citizens?

Grand Kartal Hotel, State Capacity, and Government Priorities

One of the fundamental drivers of economic growth is the increase in productivity. Higher productivity allows the same population to produce more goods and services, leading to greater consumption and, consequently, higher levels of welfare. In this regard, renowned economist Paul Krugman famously emphasized the significance of productivity with his well-known statement:"Productivity isn't everything, but in the long run, it is almost everything. A country's ability to improve its standard of living over time depends almost entirely on its ability to raise output per worker."However, when efforts to enhance productivity and drive economic growth are rushed or poorly executed, or when productivity and growth cease to be mere tools and instead become ultimate goals, human life is often pushed into the background, leading to tragic consequences. The Kartalkaya fire disaster and the events preceding it serve as the latest example of this phenomenon.In the 1970s, disabled individuals in the United States gained equal access rights to federally funded services, including public transportation. However, despite these legal advancements, New York City’s subway system and many others failed to provide necessary accessibility measures for disabled passengers. Economists close to President Jimmy Carter dismissed such investments as unnecessary, arguing that cost-benefit analysis showed that the costs of these accommodations far outweighed the benefits (1).Although cost-benefit analysis is a widely used tool in economics to improve efficiency, it can sometimes evolve into a perspective that prioritizes costs over human well-being. In today’s world, the focus on productivity growth has shifted from producing more with the same cost to producing the same output at a lower cost, placing greater emphasis on cost minimization. While cost minimization contributes significantly to efficiency, it also gradually leads to the neglect of intangible and unquantifiable costs.At extreme levels, this perspective can even relegate human life to a secondary concern—because protecting human life also incurs monetary costs. From a purely financial standpoint, avoiding these costs can lead to cheaper production. Furthermore, the likelihood of a disaster occurring due to neglected safety measures is often perceived as low, meaning the benefit of preventative action is seen as insignificant or nonexistent.This mindset is encapsulated perfectly in a scene from the documentary American Factory, where a Chinese businessman opening a factory in the US is asked whether an outdoor opening ceremony is a good idea, given the possibility of rain. His response?"It won’t rain."In an economy where increasing production and economic growth are prioritized, cost-benefit analysis naturally finds its place. When governments adopt and focus on this economic approach, they tend to overestimate the benefits of growth while viewing the protection of human life as a cost that needs to be minimized. As a result, they introduce regulations that prioritize economic growth.Within this framework, the modern state, which holds the authority to inspect companies, regulates—or rather, neglects—these inspections in a way that promotes growth. Meanwhile, the public, which has delegated the duty of oversight to the state, naturally assumes that the goods and services they receive do not require additional scrutiny. However, this combination of cost minimization, delegation of oversight, and growth-focused policies ultimately invites disasters.The recent death of a citizen poisoned by a baked potato, the previous week's fatal case of food poisoning from chicken, and the Kartalkaya hotel fire that claimed 79 lives are all tragic examples of how prioritizing cost and efficiency over safety leads to loss of life. Similarly, the climate crisis—the most pressing global Issue of our era—is exacerbated by factories that pollute the environment while society at large bears the cost, and they alone reap the benefits. This is yet another consequence of combining cost-benefit analysis with a lack of regulation.From this perspective, when the market system fails to function properly, regulatory institutions are expected to intervene and oversee companies. However, the obsession with economic growth weakens regulatory oversight in an effort to facilitate expansion. This short-term profit-driven approach, shared by both businesses and policymakers, jeopardizes long-term stability and public safety, leading to tragedies like those we have witnessed.While skepticism toward market regulations and the argument that many regulations are unnecessary are valid, and while economic growth remains essential for increasing prosperity, deregulation should not come at the expense of fundamental rights—especially the right to life and safety.* Dr. Caner Gerek<hr fr-original-style="" style="height: 0px; overflow: visible; border-bottom: none; clear: both; user-select: none; break-after: page; box-sizing: border-box;"> 1 Berman, Elizabeth P. (2022). Thinking Like an Economist: How Efficiency Replaced Equality in US Public Policy, 2023.

From this perspective, when the market system fails to function properly, regulatory institutions are expected to intervene and oversee companies. However, the obsession with economic growth weakens regulatory oversight in an effort to facilitate expansion. This short-term profit-driven approach, shared by both businesses and policymakers, jeopardizes long-term stability and public safety, leading to tragedies like those we have witnessed.

Cost Minimization and the Devaluation of Human Life

One of the fundamental safeguards of the rule of law is undoubtedly the presence of an impartial and independent judiciary. The equal application of the law to all citizens can only be ensured through judicial independence. While judicial independence has always been a challenge in Turkey, the executive's control over the judiciary has become increasingly evident over the past decade, particularly after the 2017 constitutional amendments. Judicial independence has also been a key focus since Turkey was placed back under monitoring by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE).Within this framework, the Chair of the PACE Monitoring Committee formally requested an opinion from the Venice Commission on April 18, 2024, regarding the structure of the Council of Judges and Prosecutors (HSK) and the procedures for electing its members.[1] The Venice Commission adopted the opinion, prepared by rapporteurs, during its 141st Plenary Session on December 6–7, 2024. Comprising 123 paragraphs, the opinion thoroughly examined the HSK’s structure, the sources and selection processes of its members, its functioning and powers, as well as the composition and authorities of its Inspection Board and General Secretariat.The Venice Commission emphasized that, according to European standards, at least half of the members of a judicial council should be judges elected by their peers. It highlighted that none of the members of the HSK are elected by judges and prosecutors, which is inconsistent with these standards. The Commission underscored that the purpose of having council members elected by judges is to protect the judiciary from political interference, ensuring that the judicial members of the Council represent only the perspective of the community of judges and prosecutors. Additionally, it noted that the selection of non-judicial members is intended to strengthen the Council's external legitimacy and mitigate the negative effects of corporatism, thereby achieving a pluralistic and democratically legitimate composition.The Venice Commission noted that while eight members of Turkey’s HSK are judges or prosecutors, they are not elected by their peers but rather appointed by the executive and legislature. It acknowledged that these eight members are determined based on political preferences, which means they cannot truly be said to represent the judiciary. Taking into account the President’s position after the 2017 constitutional amendments, the Commission emphasized that at least ten of the HSK’s 13 members are effectively chosen by the executive, resulting in significant political influence over the judiciary.In response, the Venice Commission recommended that at least half of the HSK members be elected by judges and prosecutors from various levels of the judiciary. It also advised that constitutional and legal amendments be enacted to establish a system ensuring adequate diversity in terms of gender, minorities, and geographic representation. Furthermore, the Commission proposed the removal of the Minister of Justice and the Ministry’s Undersecretary from the HSK.The Venice Commission recommended increasing the total number of HSK members as well as the number of non-judicial members selected by the Parliament. It also advised the introduction of legislative amendments to prohibit the selection of candidates with clear political ties to the executive or legislative branches. Additionally, it suggested that organizations such as the Bar Association and universities should conduct a pre-selection process for candidates to be elected by the Parliament through a Joint Committee.The Commission proposed guaranteeing the tenure security and functional immunity of HSK members through constitutional and legal safeguards. It recommended that grounds for dismissal and sanctions be narrowly and clearly defined, explicitly excluding reasons unrelated to the exercise of judicial duties.Furthermore, the Commission advised ensuring that the HSK Chairperson is an impartial individual elected by the members themselves, limiting the Chairperson's powers, and subjecting all Council decisions to judicial review. It also called for the elimination of personnel transfers between the Ministry of Justice and the Council, preventing political influence over appointments of the General Secretary, inspectors, and rapporteur judges and increasing the transparency of the Council's internal operations.While the Commission's findings and recommendations are essential for an independent Council and judiciary, it is currently unrealistic to suggest that the political will necessary to implement these changes exists in Turkey today.

Furthermore, the Commission advised ensuring that the HSK Chairperson is an impartial individual elected by the members themselves, limiting the Chairperson's powers, and subjecting all Council decisions to judicial review. It also called for the elimination of personnel transfers between the Ministry of Justice and the Council, preventing political influence over appointments of the General Secretary, inspectors, and rapporteur judges and increasing the transparency of the Council's internal operations.

Venice Commission's View on the HSK

On January 10, Friday, in Mersin's Akdeniz district, DEM Party Co-Mayors Nuriye Arslan and Hoşyar Sarıyıldız, who won the municipality with 37% of the vote in the March 31, 2024 local elections, were detained, and a trustee was appointed in their place. Once again, trustee practices became a central issue in Turkey's democratic political environment. The detentions occurred as part of an investigation involving allegations of "spreading terrorist propaganda" and "violating anti-terror financing regulations." Previously, trustees had been appointed to the Hakkari Municipality and CHP-led Esenyurt Municipality, followed by similar actions in Mardin Metropolitan, Batman, and Halfeti municipalities, bringing the total number of removed mayors to five. With Akdeniz Municipality added, this number has now risen to six.In a statement, DEM Party described the detentions as a political operation, emphasizing that this intervention in the will of the people is a continuation of the "trustee mentality." Similarly, CHP and other opposition parties condemned the incident as an act of "tyranny" and labeled it a blow to democracy.But how can the continuation of trustee appointments and detentions be explained during a period when negotiations between the DEM Party and the ruling bloc over Abdullah Öcalan's release and PKK disarmament are ongoing? Isn't this a contradiction? Developments so far suggest two possibilities. On the one hand, the government seems intent on continuing the negotiations initiated by Devlet Bahçeli while simultaneously increasing pressure on the DEM Party to strengthen its bargaining position. On the other hand, it's possible that Erdoğan and the AKP, who have never fully embraced or publicly debated this process, are making these moves despite ongoing negotiations. Indeed, when examining the positive tone of Bahçeli's speech following the appointment of a trustee to replace Ahmet Türk—a figure Bahçeli has previously expressed respect for—it becomes evident that not everything in this process is being carried out under a unified plan or in a consistent manner.Regardless of how these developments fit into the broader negotiations, one fact remains clear: trustee practices that narrow the space for democratic politics further normalize interventions in the people's will, leading to greater erosion of democratic values in Turkey.

Regardless of how these developments fit into the broader negotiations, one fact remains clear: trustee practices that narrow the space for democratic politics further normalize interventions in the people's will, leading to greater erosion of democratic values in Turkey.

Since October 2021, the Turkish economy has been grappling with inflation and the economic damage it has caused. Although topics like foreign policy occasionally dominate the agenda, the sharp decline in purchasing power—particularly among the lowest-income groups—remains the most pressing issue. Combating inflation relies on two primary tools: monetary policy and fiscal policy. While monetary policy has been implemented stringently since the 2024 local elections, fiscal policy has seen insufficient steps taken to address inflation. The lack of coordination between these two tools has negatively impacted efforts to fight inflation. At the core of this dissonance lies the inability to control budget expenditures within fiscal policy.Although it may seem contradictory to the previous point, it can still be argued that disciplined fiscal management exists. Fiscal discipline has been one of the most defining economic features of the AK Party era. Despite adverse factors such as the economic downturn and the earthquake, budget discipline continues to be maintained. Thanks to this continuity, the public budget deficit in 2025 is expected to be 3.1% of the national income—a figure quite close to the 3% threshold set by the Maastricht Criteria, which Turkey once aimed to meet as part of its EU aspirations.This seemingly paradoxical situation is explained by a key factor: despite high public expenditures, balance is maintained through equally high tax revenues. Although it would be possible to achieve lower public spending and revenue levels, economic management has opted to keep both at elevated levels. The main driver of this elevated balance is the inability to control public expenditures. Unable to cut spending, the government is forced to increase tax rates to boost revenue.The increase in taxes has two adverse effects on inflation. First, rising public expenditures fail to reduce demand sufficiently, preventing inflation from declining rapidly. Second, high tax rates push up the prices of goods and services, driving inflation higher. In this context, the revaluation rate for public service prices being set at a high level of 43.93% further limits the decline in inflation. Additionally, some public services previously financed through direct and indirect taxes have recently been subjected to new charges. The two latest examples of this can be seen in last week's decisions.The first of these decisions involves the Revenue Administration’s new policy of charging fees for inquiries made by legal entities such as companies, chambers, bar associations, and notaries[2]. For instance, the fee for a balance sheet inquiry can go up to 518 TL. This means that inquiries, which were previously financed through existing taxes and should have been covered as such, now require additional payments as if public taxes were not already funding them. The second decision concerns charging fees for certain health reports. For example, citizens seeking a driver’s license report will now have to pay a separate service fee specifically for the report, in addition to the taxes they already pay.[3] These measures suggest an approach that resembles the re-taxation of nearly every service to fund public expenditures. The economic administration anticipates that tax revenues will increase significantly, exceeding the expected inflation rate in 2025. It projects that these revenues will rise by 46.5%, reaching 11.139 trillion TL.The sharp increases in public revenues and expenditures, as outlined above, complicate efforts to combat inflation and place a heavier burden on the Central Bank. Lacking sufficient support from the public sector, the Central Bank is compelled to maintain the exchange rate at its current levels for a longer period to fight inflation. This, in turn, leads to the spread of price anomalies—arising from the appreciation of dollar-based products—across broader segments of the economy, disrupting the balance. Additionally, the inability to reduce public expenditures negatively impacts inflation expectations. However, the high level of public spending does not only affect inflation. While public revenues represent an expense for taxpayers, public expenditures serve as a source of income for other groups. Considering the inefficiency of public spending, the effectiveness of this resource transfer is highly questionable. These issues collectively push us further away from a market economy, steering the system toward one where income and income distribution are centrally determined from the top.* Dr. Caner Gerek<hr fr-original-style="" style="height: 0px; overflow: visible; border-bottom: none; clear: both; user-select: none; break-after: page; box-sizing: border-box;"> 1 Venice Commission, Türkiye - Opinion on the composition of the Council of Judges and Prosecutors and the procedure for the election of its members, adopted by the Venice Commission at its 141st Plenary Session (Venice, 6-7 December 2024) CDL-AD(2024)041-e&nbsp;https://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/?pdf=CDL-AD(2024)041-e2 https://www.ekoturk.com/haberler/gelir-idaresindeki-sorgular-ucretli-oldu-iste-en-dusuk-sorgulama-ucreti/3 https://www.ekonomim.com/gundem/ayakta-tedavide-katki-payi-10-kat-artirildi-aile-hekiminden-alinacak-bazi-raporlar-artik-ucretli-haberi-791970

While public revenues represent an expense for taxpayers, public expenditures serve as a source of income for other groups. Considering the inefficiency of public spending, the effectiveness of this resource transfer is highly questionable. These issues collectively push us further away from a market economy, steering the system toward one where income and income distribution are centrally determined from the top.

Rising Taxes in the Era of Combating Inflation

The unpredictable and arbitrary broad interpretation of anti-terror legislation in Turkey has become a structural issue. This situation, which also points to problems related to judicial independence, reveals a deficiency in the rule of law. As a result, anyone who expresses views displeasing to those in power—including opposition politicians, civil society workers, journalists, academics, and human rights defenders—can be subjected to investigation, prosecution, arrest, and conviction based on vague terrorism charges. This leads to the unlawful restriction of fundamental rights and freedoms, particularly freedom of expression and association.Over the past decade, numerous independent observers have written countless reports on the unpredictable interpretation of anti-terror legislation, and international organizations have repeatedly warned Turkish authorities on this matter. However, it is difficult to say that any positive developments have occurred. In 2016, the Venice Commission produced a report on certain articles of the Turkish Penal Code, finding that these articles were applied in an overly broad and unpredictable manner, violating the rights safeguarded by the European Convention on Human Rights. The Commission issued warnings that these provisions should be amended and applied in a manner consistent with the principles of the Convention.[1] Over the past decade, the Council of Europe’s Human Rights Commissioners have also published numerous country reports and memoranda on Turkey, highlighting arbitrary applications of anti-terror legislation and offering warnings and recommendations to Turkish authorities.[2]The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has also issued rulings on several articles of the Turkish Penal Code, including Article 125/3[3] on insulting a public official due to their duties, Article 220/6[4] on committing a crime on behalf of an organization without being a member, Article 220/7[5] on aiding an organization, Article 299[6] on insulting the President, Article 301[7] on insulting the Turkish nation and state institutions, and Article 314[8] On membership in a terrorist organization. These rulings determined that these provisions were interpreted in an unpredictable manner, and actions intended to exercise rights protected by the Convention were criminalized. The Committee of Ministers, which oversees the implementation of ECHR judgments, periodically monitors whether the general measures required by these rulings have been adopted by Turkish authorities. To date, no general measures have been deemed implemented for any of these judgments, nor have they been removed from the monitoring process.On October 22, 2024, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled that Article 314 of the Turkish Penal Code had been applied in an unpredictable manner, leading to the arrest of a politician on charges of membership in a terrorist organization due to their political speeches. The Court found that this application violated both Article 10 of the Convention, which guarantees freedom of expression, and Article 5, which guarantees the right to liberty and security of person.[9]The applicant, who is the co-chair of the Democratic Regions Party, was investigated on charges of membership in a terrorist organization due to speeches made at various political meetings and statements given to the press. The applicant was detained on May 12, 2016, subsequently arrested, and later convicted at the end of the trial. The application in question pertains to an appeal based on the detention. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) noted that all charges against the applicant were related to political speeches, which included severe criticism of the government and law enforcement but did not praise or incite violence, nor did they contain hate speech. The Court considered that these criticisms fell within the limits of freedom of expression. It also pointed out that there was no concrete evidence in the case file to suggest that the applicant acted in line with the instructions of a terrorist organization and that the detention orders were not based on such evidence. The ECHR concluded that the legislation was interpreted in an arbitrary and unpredictable manner.In this ruling, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) specifically references findings by both the Venice Commission and the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights, highlighting that Turkish judiciary systematically applies anti-terror legislation without considering the principles of the Convention. The ECHR’s determination that this issue is structural and systemic is likely to have significant future implications. Recent developments further confirm the validity of this assessment. A return to the rule of law in Turkey is achievable only if the judiciary aligns with universal standards and ceases to be instrumentalized.

A return to the rule of law in Turkey is achievable only if the judiciary aligns with universal standards and ceases to be instrumentalized.

Unpredictable Use of Anti-Terror Laws

The ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) has introduced a proposal to amend the Turkish Penal Code by incorporating the concept of “foreign agent activity.” This proposal has passed through the Parliamentary Justice Committee. Presented as part of an omnibus bill, the amendment stipulates that individuals committing offenses “against state security or internal or external political interests, in line with the strategic objectives or directives of a foreign state or organization,” would face imprisonment ranging from 3 to 7 years. If such acts are committed during wartime or in situations that could jeopardize military operations, the sentence increases to between 8 and 12 years. While the bill is expected to be discussed in the General Assembly of the Turkish Grand National Assembly in the coming days, it has not garnered the attention it warrants amid the current busy agenda.Before assessing the threats this bill poses to rights and freedoms, it is necessary to discuss the public relations method employed by the ruling AK Party in implementing its illiberal policies. The government and pro-government media[10] Are attempting to legitimize this legal provision by claiming that similar examples exist in the West. In reality, the government has previously employed this “Western-referenced legitimization” strategy—created in a highly selective and manipulative manner—in various areas, such as animal rights laws, alcohol sales restrictions, and similar issues.However, this approach overlooks some key differences between Western practices and Turkey’s proposal. In liberal democratic countries, laws are typically enacted to promote transparency, democratic accountability, and public access to information. In contrast, Turkey’s “foreign agent” bill is primarily aimed at silencing voices critical of the government. For example, the U.S. Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) requires certain organizations, under specific circumstances, to disclose funds and activities received from foreign countries, thereby enabling the public to be informed about lobbying activities.It is also worth noting an important detail highlighted by the Venice Commission: under FARA, merely receiving funds from foreign sources does not require an organization to register under the law. Registration is only mandatory if an individual or organization operates directly under the instruction and control of a foreign principal—that is, if they act on behalf of or at the direction of a foreign entity. Therefore, the law is not specifically aimed at targeting civil society organizations or media representatives; it applies to any commercial or nonprofit entity or individual acting as a lawful agent on behalf of a foreign principal. In other words, this regulation in the U.S. requires a very high level of control between the foreign principal and the agent.[11] Similar directives within the European Union also focus on transparency, aiming to ensure that these activities are conducted transparently within the democratic system through publicly accessible databases.In other words, this regulation in the U.S. requires a very high level of control between the foreign principal and the agent. Similar directives within the European Union also focus specifically on transparency, aiming to ensure that these activities are conducted transparently within the democratic system through publicly accessible databases.In Turkey, this regulation does not introduce a registration system. Civil society organizations in Turkey already have their funding recorded within the legal system. What this regulation effectively does is create a new offense and allow for its broad interpretation. Therefore, comparing this regulation with Western examples is misleading in terms of both content and purpose. In this respect, it would be more accurate to compare this regulation not with those in Western countries but rather with laws such as Russia’s “foreign agent law,” which are enacted to suppress individuals and activities that displease the government.In May 2024, despite widespread protests, Georgia enacted the “Foreign Influence Law,” which closely resembles the proposed legislation in Turkey. Critics dubbed this law the “Russian Law” because it mandates that organizations receiving more than 20% of their funding from abroad register as “foreign influence agents.” The Venice Commission also highlighted that the law’s broad and ambiguous language poses significant risks of human rights violations.[12]The most critical issue in Turkish regulation is the use of extremely vague terms like “the strategic interests of a foreign state or organization.” The accusation of acting in line with the strategic interests of a foreign state or organization is inherently difficult to prove but easy to allege. Moreover, in a country like Turkey, where definitions of national security and internal and external political interests constantly shift according to the government’s daily calculations, ambiguity and arbitrariness are inevitable. Given that we have witnessed many laws enacted in recent years being applied to suppress the opposition in line with the government’s political calculations, it is clear that this regulation also aims to impose a blockade on the opposition.The rationale for the proposal states that it aims to penalize activities that could harm the state’s interests in various areas, including “economic, financial, military, national defense, public health, public security, public order, technological, cultural, transportation, communication, cyber domain, critical infrastructure, and energy.” This broad scope could allow any form of critical journalism in Turkey to be potentially treated as a crime because it is against Turkey’s foreign interests and serves the interests of a foreign country. Furthermore, the rationale includes broad definitions such as “organizations not under judicial authority,” thereby potentially targeting independent media outlets, NGOs with international partners, and even academic circles.This regulation will have a wide-reaching impact on society; particularly, media organizations, civil society groups, and academics will be forced to practice self-censorship. Those with courageous voices will also face severe penalties. As a society, it is essential to closely monitor this issue, defend freedom of expression, and uphold the rule of law to protect democratic values.

This regulation will have a wide-reaching impact on society; particularly, media organizations, civil society groups, and academics will be forced to practice self-censorship. Those with courageous voices will also face severe penalties. As a society, it is essential to closely monitor this issue, defend freedom of expression, and uphold the rule of law to protect democratic values.

The recent “Newborn Gang” incident, which has shaken the Turkish public, has brought the issues of closing private hospitals and criticism of healthcare privatization to the forefront. Opponents of privatization argue that such a crucial and sensitive area as healthcare should not be left to market conditions, claiming that the profit motive leads private hospitals to endanger people’s health. Using the Newborn Gang as an example, they are calling for the nationalization of private hospitals. However, the severity of the incident complicates conducting a healthy debate, and seeking solutions in the direction of closing private hospitals reflects a highly problematic approach.Shortly before the discussion about closing private hospitals, access to the social media application Discord was blocked. The restriction on Discord was justified as a measure against malicious users, yet many who benefit from the application were adversely affected. In Turkey, issues are often “resolved” by focusing on negatives and imposing punishments on everyone involved. The call for the closure or nationalization of private hospitals is yet another example of this approach. Thanks to private hospitals, many people are able to spend less time dealing with health issues and can access services more promptly when needed. Treatments in these hospitals are often more personalized, service quality is higher, and patients have the option to choose their doctors. With the use of the latest technologies, more accurate and faster solutions are provided for many illnesses. All these factors lead people to prefer private hospitals, even if it means paying higher fees. While private hospitals are in such high demand, the fact that public hospitals are not preferred sends strong signals about the challenges in public healthcare services.One of the main factors underlying the advantages of private hospitals listed above is the profit motive (to a large extent). Just as pharmaceutical companies develop drugs for many treatments driven by profit rather than prioritizing societal benefit, here, too, the profit motive contributes to public benefit. However, when the pursuit of profit turns into “profit greed,” as in the case of the Newborn Gang, it can lead to highly risky situations, while the profit motive makes private hospitals beneficial; once this desire reaches the level of greed, it can endanger lives. This clearly shows that profit-driven motives must be regulated and controlLed. I believe the most challenging part of solving this problem lies in the issue of regulation.Private healthcare institutions are not unregulated. However, it is evident that these inspections are largely superficial. Since the regulatory bodies do not conduct inspections with an approach aimed at preventing the worst manifestations of profit greed, expecting meaningful outcomes from these inspections becomes pointless. Thus, a systemic issue is apparent here. The regulator and the regulated act are in alignment with mutual interests. Solving this problem is challenging without addressing the issue within the system itself. The problem cannot be entirely resolved, as there will always be a certain level of issues stemming from asymmetric information and the discretion of doctors. A comprehensive systemic solution cannot be achieved without ending the partnership between the government and private healthcare institutions. Once this partnership is dissolved, the problems created by private hospitals could be mitigated.One of these partial solutions is strengthening public and private oversight. With the rapidly increasing but properly modeled use of artificial intelligence in the healthcare sector, it becomes quite easy to detect many abnormal situations. For instance, an unusual rise in the number of infants in intensive care could be identified easily with artificial intelligence—or even without it. In addition, making hospitals more transparent and reporting on treatment quality would help those experiencing health issues make more informed choices when selecting private hospitals and doctors.To counter the trend of hospitals forming chains and moving away from competition, steps that support and encourage competition could help distribute risk, achieve fair pricing, and improve service quality. However, all these measures could only contribute to resolving the issue in an environment where there is no mutual interest collaboration between the government and private hospitals. The current situation is one where private hospitals appear to be regulated but, in reality, are not, with resources being channeled into them as much as possible. This appearance of regulation significantly hinders people from making informed choices and confronts us with the worst form of privatization. The outcome suggests that even liberals should view privatization with a more critical eye. * Dr. Caner Gerek<hr fr-original-style="" style="height: 0px; overflow: visible; border-bottom: none; clear: both; user-select: none; break-after: page; box-sizing: border-box;"> 1 Venedik Komisyonu, “Türk Ceza Kanununun 216, 299, 301 ve 314 Maddelerine İlişkin Görüş” 11-12 Mart 2016, İngilizce metne şuradan erişilebilir: https://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/?pdf=CDL-AD(2016)002-e#2İfade ve Basın Özgürlüğü, İnsan Hakları Savunucuları ve Sivil Topluma ilişkin son Memorandum için bkz: https://rm.coe.int/memorandum-on-freedom-of-expression-and-of-the-media-human-rights-defe/1680aebf3d3Ömür Çağdaş Ersoy/Türkiye, no. 19165/19, 15.06.20214 Işıkırık/Türkiye, no. 41226/09, 14.11.20175 İmret/Türkiye (No. 2), no. 57316/10, 10.07.20186 Vedat Şorli/Türkiye, no. 42048/19, 19.10.2021&nbsp;7 Altuğ Taner Akçam/Türkiye, no. 27520/07, 25.10.20118 Selahattin Demirtaş/Türkiye (No. 2), [BD], no. 14305/17, 22.12.20209 Yüksek/Türkiye, no. 4/18, 22.10.2024, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-23743010https://www.aa.com.tr/tr/dunya/bati-basta-olmak-uzere-cok-sayida-ulkede-etki-ajanligiyla-mucadele-yasal-zemine-sahip/323499111 https://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/default.aspx?pdffile=CDL-PI(2024)013-e12https://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/default.aspx?pdffile=CDL-PI(2024)013-e

The current situation is one where private hospitals appear to be regulated but, in reality, are not, with resources being channeled into them as much as possible. This appearance of regulation significantly hinders people from making informed choices and confronts us with the worst form of privatization. The outcome suggests that even liberals should view privatization with a more critical eye.

Private Hospitals and "Profit Motive"

Founded by journalist and lawyer Ömer Madra, Açık Radio has been broadcasting since 1994 with the slogan, "Open to all the sounds, colors, and vibrations of the universe!" However, as of October 11, 2024, the station ceased broadcasting due to the cancellation of its terrestrial broadcast license by the Radio and Television Supreme Council (RTÜK).1The process leading to the revocation of the broadcast license stems from the April 24, 2024 broadcast of the “Açık Gazete” program, specifically during the “Nereye Doğru: Cengiz Aktar’la Geleceğe Bakışlar” segment. The claims are based on the use of the term “Armenian Genocide” in the context of the ban on activities commemorating the events of 1915. During the broadcast, journalist Cengiz Aktar (C.A.) engaged in the following dialogue:“… yes, the Armenian, that is, the deportation and massacres that occurred on Ottoman lands, massacres that are referred to as genocide, mark their 109th anniversary, the sene-i devriyesi. The commemoration has been banned again this year, as you know.”Ömer Madra: “We tried to touch on this a little earlier. In the opening, we mentioned some of the first bans.”C.A.: “Yes, it used to take place in Sultanahmet, Haydarpaşa, Taksim, and Kadıköy. Every year, it was held in different places. Initially, it was commemorated in Taksim, back in 2010.”Özdeş Özbay: “Yes, a commemoration.”C.A.: “Yes, but it’s no longer possible to hold it there. The Armenian Genocide commemoration... and yet the government still issues a condolence message, as you know, they did so again this year. It’s unclear what exactly they are doing, yes…”As a result of these statements, RTÜK launched an investigation into the program.The investigation was launched based on the allegation that the principles in Article 8, paragraph 1(b) of Law No. 6112 on the Establishment and Broadcasting Services of Radio and Television were violated. This provision states that “Broadcasting services cannot incite society to hatred and enmity or create feelings of hatred by discriminating on the basis of race, language, religion, gender, class, region, or sect.” On May 22, 2024, RTÜK ruled that this principle had been violated and imposed an administrative fine and a broadcast suspension on Açık Radyo. The ruling included a fine of approximately 190,000 TL and a five-day broadcast suspension, and it was electronically delivered to Açık Radyo.&nbsp;However, the section of the notification containing the broadcast suspension penalty could not be opened due to a technical issue, and by the time the document was accessed, the days on which the suspension was supposed to be implemented had already passed. Açık Radyo submitted a request to RTÜK regarding this issue, but on July 3, 2024, RTÜK decided to revoke the station’s broadcast license, citing non-compliance with the suspension decision under Article 32 of Law No. 6112. Nevertheless, because the administrative court had issued a stay of execution in the case against the penalty decision, this revocation decision was not officially communicated to Açık Radyo.On September 27, 2024, after receiving the response from the administration, the administrative court lifted the stay of execution and rejected the request for a suspension of enforcement. Following this decision, RTÜK officially notified Açık Radyo of the broadcast license revocation.&nbsp;It is important to note that, despite the high likelihood that the penalty would be annulled—given that the speech in question clearly falls under freedom of expression as established by ECtHR precedents—RTÜK’s decision to revoke the broadcast license without waiting for the court's final ruling can hardly be considered a good-faith action. Additionally, despite Açık Radyo stating that the failure to comply with the broadcast suspension was unintentional and due to a technical oversight, RTÜK revoked the terrestrial broadcast license the very next day after Açık Radyo made this notification, which also does not seem to align with a good-faith approach.Regarding criminal prosecutions related to the use of the term "Armenian Genocide," several appeals have been made to the Constitutional Court and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), both of which ruled that the use of this term should not be the subject of criminal charges. In the *Deniz Yücel* case, the Constitutional Court stated, "The applicant’s use of the phrase ‘genocide against Armenians’ relates to a topic that triggers heated debates not only in Turkey but also internationally.2 &nbsp;The mere use of such a phrase should not be subject to criminal charges." Similarly, in the *Taner Akçam* case, the ECtHR found that the investigations launched against the applicant for his writings and speeches on the "Armenian Genocide" constituted a violation of freedom of expression.3Despite these rulings, the revocation of Açık Radyo’s broadcasting license—a station that has been broadcasting for 30 years—solely because the term "Armenian Genocide" was mentioned in a radio program, clearly constitutes a violation of freedom of expression and amounts to censorship.

Despite these rulings, the revocation of Açık Radyo’s broadcasting license—a station that has been broadcasting for 30 years—solely because the term "Armenian Genocide" was mentioned in a radio program, clearly constitutes a violation of freedom of expression and amounts to censorship.