Kurdistan Center
for Democracy in the Middle East
Khoyboun Flag
About us
www.kcdme.com
[ANALYSIS] Turkey is no longer a democracy or a state governed by law
11.06.2025
By Turkish Minute
Source:https://www.turkishminute.com/2025/06/11/analysis-turkey-is-no-longer-a-democracy-or-a-state-governed-by-law/
Ömer Murat*
A growing global consensus suggests that Turkey has deviated from democratic principles under the leadership of President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. However, the fact that Turkey is no longer a constitutional state is discussed less often. A recent development has brought this distressing reality to the fore once again.
In the aftermath of the implementation of a presidential system of governance through a 2017 referendum, the constitution underwent amendments that effectively abolished the separation of powers, thereby subsuming the judiciary under the authority of the executive branch.
It is also noteworthy to mention that a research study that was peer reviewed and published by foreign academics discovered systematic and highly significant statistical evidence of ballot stuffing and voter fraud in that referendum. According to the researchers, the elimination of these anomalies from the dataset would result in a shift in the overall balance from “Yes” to “No” votes.
The 2017 constitutional amendment also outlined the selection process for the 13 members of the Turkey’s Board of Judges and Prosecutors (HSK). The HSK plays a pivotal role in critical decision-making processes, including recruiting judges and prosecutors, appointing and transferring these individuals, determining who is deemed unsuitable for continued professional practice and imposing disciplinary penalties.
The new selection process enables the president and the ruling party to appoint the majority of HSK members. The president can appoint four members directly. The minister of justice and his undersecretary, both of whom were appointed by the president, can each appoint one member. The remaining seven members are selected by a vote in parliament. Given the ruling party’s majority in parliament, this means that the party appoints the majority of these members.
Last month five new members were selected to replace outgoing HSK members. Article 159 of the Turkish Constitution outlines the procedure for these elections: The speaker of parliament refers applications to a joint committee from the Constitution and Justice committees. The committee is supposed to nominate three candidates per seat by a two-thirds vote. If unsuccessful, a three-fifths majority is required in a second round. If still unresolved, the final choice must be made by drawing lots between the top two candidates.
In the elections held on May 21 at the Turkish parliament, some candidates were not elected in the first two ballots. Nevertheless, the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) deviated from the principles it had established itself by opting for a third vote by simple majority instead of a third ballot by lot. Essentially, the actions of the ruling party members did not align with the constitutional amendments they had previously enacted.
The main opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP) has announced plans to submit a petition to the Constitutional Court to invalidate the HSK election, citing explicit constitutional violations. However, the composition of the Constitutional Court, which is predominantly appointed by the president and ruling party, has long been a matter of concern. This pervasive control over the judiciary has emboldened the ruling party to engage in such actions that contravene constitutional provisions it helped establish.
The following fact further illustrates the absurdity of this constitutional infraction: HSK decisions are determined by majority vote, so a small number of opposition-selected candidates cannot significantly influence the outcome. Nevertheless, we see the Erdoğan’s regime’s resolute intention to appoint all HSK members, even if this action violates the constitution.
In the wake of the arrest of Istanbul Mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu, Erdoğan’s primary challenger in future elections, on allegations of dubious credibility, numerous observers have posited that Turkey’s status as a democracy has become increasingly tenuous, suggesting a shift towards a Russian-style autocracy.
It is also no longer feasible to assert that Turkey is a nation governed by the fundamental principle of the rule of law. A plethora of developments have emerged to substantiate this assertion. For instance, Article 90 of the Turkish Constitution stipulates the implementation of decisions rendered by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). This article ensures that duly ratified international agreements, including the European Convention on Human Rights, have the force of law in Turkey. In instances of conflict regarding fundamental rights and freedoms, the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights take precedence over domestic laws.
However, the case of Osman Kavala, a businessman, philanthropist and prominent civil society figure, is just one example of the many that demonstrate that the Turkish judiciary, under the control of the ruling party, disregards ECtHR rulings that do not align with its agenda. Kavala has been imprisoned since November 2017, despite a ruling by the ECtHR that called for his immediate release.
Another development lending credence to the argument that Turkey under Erdoğan’s rule can no longer be considered a state governed by the rule of law is the blatant violation of the constitution during the HSK elections.
In light of these circumstances, it is worth considering the potential implications of Western international organizations such as the Council of Europe and NATO’s continued regard for the Turkish regime as democratic and governed by the rule of law. This could perhaps reflect a certain deficiency in the West’s capacity and inclination to adhere to the standards it has set for itself.
* Ömer Murat is a political analyst and a former Turkish diplomat who currently lives in Germany.
11.06.2025
By Turkish Minute
Source:https://www.turkishminute.com/2025/06/11/analysis-
Ömer Murat*
A growing global consensus suggests that Turkey has deviated from democratic principles under the leadership of President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. However, the fact that Turkey is no longer a constitutional state is discussed less often. A recent development has brought this distressing reality to the fore once again.
In the aftermath of the implementation of a presidential system of governance through a 2017 referendum, the constitution underwent amendments that effectively abolished the separation of powers, thereby subsuming the judiciary under the authority of the executive branch.
It is also noteworthy to mention that a research study that was peer reviewed and published by foreign academics discovered systematic and highly significant statistical evidence of ballot stuffing and voter fraud in that referendum. According to the researchers, the elimination of these anomalies from the dataset would result in a shift in the overall balance from “Yes” to “No” votes.
The 2017 constitutional amendment also outlined the selection process for the 13 members of the Turkey’s Board of Judges and Prosecutors (HSK). The HSK plays a pivotal role in critical decision-
The new selection process enables the president and the ruling party to appoint the majority of HSK members. The president can appoint four members directly. The minister of justice and his undersecretary, both of whom were appointed by the president, can each appoint one member. The remaining seven members are selected by a vote in parliament. Given the ruling party’s majority in parliament, this means that the party appoints the majority of these members.
Last month five new members were selected to replace outgoing HSK members. Article 159 of the Turkish Constitution outlines the procedure for these elections: The speaker of parliament refers applications to a joint committee from the Constitution and Justice committees. The committee is supposed to nominate three candidates per seat by a two-
In the elections held on May 21 at the Turkish parliament, some candidates were not elected in the first two ballots. Nevertheless, the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) deviated from the principles it had established itself by opting for a third vote by simple majority instead of a third ballot by lot. Essentially, the actions of the ruling party members did not align with the constitutional amendments they had previously enacted.
The main opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP) has announced plans to submit a petition to the Constitutional Court to invalidate the HSK election, citing explicit constitutional violations. However, the composition of the Constitutional Court, which is predominantly appointed by the president and ruling party, has long been a matter of concern. This pervasive control over the judiciary has emboldened the ruling party to engage in such actions that contravene constitutional provisions it helped establish.
The following fact further illustrates the absurdity of this constitutional infraction: HSK decisions are determined by majority vote, so a small number of opposition-
In the wake of the arrest of Istanbul Mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu, Erdoğan’s primary challenger in future elections, on allegations of dubious credibility, numerous observers have posited that Turkey’s status as a democracy has become increasingly tenuous, suggesting a shift towards a Russian-
It is also no longer feasible to assert that Turkey is a nation governed by the fundamental principle of the rule of law. A plethora of developments have emerged to substantiate this assertion. For instance, Article 90 of the Turkish Constitution stipulates the implementation of decisions rendered by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). This article ensures that duly ratified international agreements, including the European Convention on Human Rights, have the force of law in Turkey. In instances of conflict regarding fundamental rights and freedoms, the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights take precedence over domestic laws.
However, the case of Osman Kavala, a businessman, philanthropist and prominent civil society figure, is just one example of the many that demonstrate that the Turkish judiciary, under the control of the ruling party, disregards ECtHR rulings that do not align with its agenda. Kavala has been imprisoned since November 2017, despite a ruling by the ECtHR that called for his immediate release.
Another development lending credence to the argument that Turkey under Erdoğan’s rule can no longer be considered a state governed by the rule of law is the blatant violation of the constitution during the HSK elections.
In light of these circumstances, it is worth considering the potential implications of Western international organizations such as the Council of Europe and NATO’s continued regard for the Turkish regime as democratic and governed by the rule of law. This could perhaps reflect a certain deficiency in the West’s capacity and inclination to adhere to the standards it has set for itself.
* Ömer Murat is a political analyst and a former Turkish diplomat who currently lives in Germany.