TESEV calls for security sector reforms

Yet, improving democratic standards and ensuring that state institutions are held accountable for their actions are more important than ever if Turkey is to achieve lasting social peace. As Etyen Mahçupyan points out in his introduction, the ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party) had openly declared in its 2011 election manifesto that it wanted to promote "advanced democracy" in Turkey and change the prevailing mentality to one that supports individual freedoms.  

Turkey still falls short on these fronts. In spite of the changing of the guard within the army, after the arrest of dozens of senior officers accused of involvement in coup attempts, the government has done little to undermine a militaristic approach to governance. TESEV points out that the government's lack of political will to challenge the status quo and its continued reliance on the old security framework not only make it harder to solve entrenched issues, but also, in the absence of solid accountability mechanisms, leave the door open for elements within the security apparatus to once again act independently against elected authorities, present and future.

Conscientious objection is still criminalized, conscription remains compulsory and military matters, starting with defense expenditures, are still not subject to proper parliamentary scrutiny. The deaths of conscripts, whether accidental or the result of suicide, are not adequately investigated. The report recommends that civilian courts be put in charge of such inquiries and it suggests closing military courts. It also urges the civilian government to establish full control over the armed forces, and to open all military matters to civilian oversight, in and outside Parliament. TESEV recommends abolishing the village guard system, used by the state against the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), which has led to numerous claims of human rights violations.

Lack of accountability is also the key issue identified by TESEV in its examination of police and intelligence services activities. The report points to growing police violence, and suggests that "human rights violations committed by the police are systematically left unpunished" and no civilian body has the power to monitor police action. The anti-terror legislation gives the police administration very broad scope for action, including the right to use violence and to arbitrarily monitor people deemed to be dissidents. The report blames a new security approach introduced in the early 2000s, based on "prevention" and the "elimination of risks," for giving the police too much leeway to see people as "potential culprits" and to take "pre-emptive" action.

When it comes to the National Intelligence Organization (MIT), the report finds that their job description and the definitions of what constitutes a danger for the country have been left extremely vague, creating a serious risk of abuse and violations of citizens' privacy. The report stresses that a draft law on state secrets is based on loose concepts like "national security" and "the security of the state," which are too open to interpretation and need to be more narrowly defined to protect the rights of individuals.

The stated aim of this report is to identity existing shortcomings and suggest improvements, not just in the legal framework but also in daily practices. The findings of this study remind us that in spite of significant changes in recent years, lack of political will to monitor the activities of the security institutions continues to undermine the democratization process. This report should offer the basis for a broader debate on their role in a changing society.