Learn more

composite
39
39

Turkey

In law
50
In practice
37

There is direct public funding for parties in Turkey, both in law and in practice. Turkish law also provides indirect assistance, in the form of access to media during campaigns. Non-financial state resources are widely abused during campaigns. Restrictions on contribution apply only to parties and to presidential candidates; no limits constrain the size of donations to parliamentary candidates. Despite these loopholes, violations of the law are, in practice, relatively frequent. Campaign spending is not limited for any actor. In terms of reporting requirements, parties are supposed to submit annual financial reports, and presidential candidates are required to file reports after the conclusion of campaigns. Parliamentary candidates are not obligated to report any financial information. In practice, many of the reports that are filed do not include in-kind contributions or their contributors. Direct political finance data is not accessible to the public. Third party actors and their campaign activities are under no regulation in Turkey. Responsibility for monitoring political finance is split between two bodies: the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Board of Elections. The former is responsible for parties' compliance with the law, while the latter oversees presidential candidates. Concerns about the merit of the members of these bodies exist, and their independence is not fully guaranteed. In practice, neither authority conducts investigations. Nevertheless, sanctions imposed on violators are often, but not always, complied with. Enforcement in Turkey is weakened by the bifurcation of responsibilities between two separate authorities, and by loopholes that reduce the effectiveness of the current legal framework.

  • expand button!

    Direct and Indirect Public Funding

    More about category
    composite
    46
    • expand button!
      Direct Public Funding
      More about category
      • expand button!
        1
        Score
        MODERATE
        In law, there is direct public funding for electoral campaigns.More about indicator

        In Turkey there is annual direct public funding for political parties only. Candidates, including the presidential ones, are not eligible for direct funding. There is no direct public funding for election campaigns specifically. However, the annual direct public funding (state aid) that is paid to eligible political parties is three times more in the year in which a general (parliamentary) election is to be held and two times more in the year in which local elections are to be held. These additional amounts are paid to the parties as a part of the annual public funding in bulk, not separately and the annual pubic funding including these additional allotments in the election years disbursed in the annual budget submitted by the Ministry of Finance and then published in the Ministry of Finance’s General Budget Expenditures as explained in Question 4 below.

        According to Additional Article 1 of Law No. 2820, those political parties which have been recognized by the Supreme Board of Elections with the right to participate in the latest general parliamentary elections and which have passed the (10%) general threshold indicated in the Article 33 of the Law no. 2839 on the Parliamentarian Elections, shall -every year- be allocated an appropriation to be paid by the Treasury. The amount of this appropriation shall be equal to 2/5000 of the amount set out under “Table (B)” of the current year’s general budget revenues. According to the recent amendment to Additional Article 1 of the Law No. 2820 political parties which achieved more than 3% and less than 10% of the total valid votes during the general election shall also be provided with State aid. This new provision shall be applied after the 2015 general elections.

        The amount of the aid to be provided shall be determined proportional to the amount paid -in line with paragraph two- to the least-paid-political party and to the valid votes received in the last general elections. However, this amount cannot be less than 1 million Turkish Liras (USD 448,129). The amount of aid foreseen in the paragraphs above shall be paid to the eligible political parties as three folds in the year of the general elections, and as two folds in the year of local elections. Where two elections are held in the same year, the amount of the payment cannot exceed three-folds. These extra allocations are not applicable to the presidential elections. The folded payments that will be made in line with this paragraph shall be made within ten days following the announcement of the decision of the Supreme Board of Elections concerning the elections calendar. Law requires that this aid shall be used solely for the needs or activities of the political party. In other words, this aid can also be used for electoral campaign activities.

        None of the candidates for presidential, parliamentary and local (mayoral and councilor) can receive direct state aid in addition to the above mentioned annual direct state aid to the eligible political parties.

        Scoring Criteria

        A YES score is earned where there is direct public funding for both political parties and individual candidates to campaign. A 100 also applies where only one of the two actors can be elected and, therefore, only one is entitled to direct public funding.

        A MODERATE score is earned where per law only one of the two actors (either political parties or individual candidates) is allocated direct public funding to campaign, even though both can be elected.

        A NO score is earned where no such law exists.

        Sources

        1982 Constitution Article 69/last. http://global.tbmm.gov.tr/docs/constitution_en.pdf

        Law No. 2820 on Political Parties, April 22, 1983, Additional Article 1 (added on June 27, 1984. http://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/1.5.2820.pdf

        Law no. 2839 on the Parliamentarian Elections, June 13, 1983, Article 33, http://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/1.5.2839.pdf. For an unofficial English translation of the OSCE/ODIHR http://www.refworld.org/docid/4c4461f32.html

      • expand button!
        2
        Score
        MODERATE
        In law, there is a transparent and equitable mechanism to determine direct public funding for electoral campaigns.More about indicator

        According to Additional Article 1 of Law No. 2820, those political parties which have been recognized by the Supreme Board of Elections as having the right to participate in the latest general parliamentary elections and which have passed the general threshold indicated in Article 33 of Law no. 2839 on the Parliamentarian Elections, shall -every year- be allocated an appropriation by the Treasury. The amount of this allocation shall be equal to 2/5000 of the amount set out under “Table (B)” of the current year’s general budget revenues. Political parties, with between 3% and 10% of the total votes cast during the elections shall also receive aid. However, this amount cannot be less than 1 million Turkish Liras (USD 448,129). The amount of aid provided shall be determined proportional to the amount paid -in line with paragraph two- to the least-paid-political party and to the valid votes received in the last general elections.

        None of the candidates for presidential, parliamentary and local (mayoral and councilor) can receive direct state aid for their campaigns - public funding is only provided to political parties.

        Scoring Criteria

        A YES score is earned where: 1) direct public funding for political parties and individual candidates' electoral campaigns is allocated through a clearly defined calculation mechanism that is transparent and equitable, and 2) there are clearly defined eligibility criteria.

        A MODERATE score is earned where direct public funding for political party and individual candidates' electoral campaigns is allocated through a clearly defined calculation mechanism that is transparent and equitable, but eligibility criteria are not clearly defined.

        A NO score is earned where no such law exists.

        Sources

        Law No. 2820 on Political Parties, April 22, 1983, Additional Article 1 (added on June 27, 1984.) http://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/1.5.2820.pdf

        Law no. 2839 on the Parliamentarian Elections, June 13, 1983, Article 33, http://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/1.5.2839.pdf. For an unofficial English translation of the OSCE/ODIHR http://www.refworld.org/docid/4c4461f32.html

      • expand button!
        3
        Score
        75
        In practice, to what extent is the mechanism to determine direct public funding for electoral campaigns transparent, equitable and consistently applied?More about indicator

        As noted in indicators 1 and 2, there is annual direct public funding, which is paid to eligible political parties three times more in the year in which a general (parliamentary) election is to be held and two times more in the year in which local elections are to be held rather than campaign-specific funding. Candidates, including the presidential ones, are not eligible for direct funding.

        Provisions regulating and determining the annual state aid to political parties are transparent and consistently followed. However, sources interviewed argue that the criteria to determine the allocation of public funding to political parties is not "equitable" and cause inequality of opportunity among competing parties. For example, during the 2011, 11.2% of the electorate (around 4.8 million voters) supported parties that did not qualify for state subsidies (at that time, the necessary threshold was 7% of the national vote. It has since been reduced to 3%).

        However, both the Constitutional Court of Turkey and the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the criteria determining the public funding to political parties were "equitable." In 2008, the Turkish Constitutional Court decided that the Grand National Assembly has the discretionary power to determine the criterion for allocating public funding for political parties by a six-to-five majorty. The European Court also found that the criteria for public funding for political parties are proportionate to the electoral threshold as well as the electoral success (minimum level support) of the parties.

        Scoring Criteria

        A 100 score is earned where: 1) electoral campaigns allocations are always defined through a clearly defined transparent and equitable calculation mechanism, and 2) the defined eligibility criteria are applied consistently.

        A 50 score is earned where: 1) electoral campaign allocations are usually defined through a clearly defined transparent and equitable calculation mechanism but exceptions exist, or 2) the eligibility criteria are usually applied but exceptions exist.

        A 0 score is earned where: 1) political campaign allocations are rarely or never defined through a clearly defined transparent and equitable calculation mechanism, or 2) the defined eligibility criteria are rarely applied.

        Sources

        Interview with Erol Tuncer, Chairman, TESAV (Foundation for Economic and Social Research of Turkey), Ankara, August 8, 2014. Interview with Nahit Yüksel, Senior Expert, General Directorate of Budget and Fiscal Control, Ministry of Finance, Ankara, August 8, 2014. Interview with Oya Çetinkaya, Cairman, ?effafl?k Derne?i (TI Turkey Chapter), ?stanbul, August 14, 2014. Interview with ?ehriban O?han, journalist, Hürriyet daily newspaper, ?stanbul, 23 September 2014.

        Abdullah Bozkurt, "Public funding to political parties in Turkey," Todays Zaman, October 04, 2013, http://www.todayszaman.com/columnist/abdullah-bozkurt328211public-funding-to-political-parties-in-turkey.html

        Secondary sources: Turkish Constitutional Court Decision on public funding for political parties, November 20, 2008, http://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2009/03/20090318-15.htm

        The European Court of Human Rights, CASE OF ÖZGÜRLÜK VE DAYANI?MA PART?S? (ÖDP) v. TURKEY (Application no. 7819/03), October 22, 2012, http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/webservices/content/docx/001-110866?TID=thkbhnilzk

      • expand button!
        4
        Score
        50
        In practice, to what extent does the entity in charge of public funding make disbursement information publicly available?More about indicator

        As noted in indicators 1 and 2, there is annual direct public funding, rather than campaign-specific funding, for political parties only. Candidates, including the presidential ones, are not eligible for direct funding.

        The planned disbursement of annual state aid to political parties is publicized by the Ministry of Finance as soon as the new year's budget is submitted to the Grand National Assembly of Turkey (GNAT) in October every year, and more concretely, in the approved budget that's published in January. Funding is disbursed in the first ten days of January each year. The amount that is actually allocated is released by the end of March.

        This information is published in the consolidated budget and the final accounts bulletins/statistics of the Ministry in excel format. Further, quarterly fiscal statistics about the central government agencies are electronically published, meaning that how much aid has been paid to political parties in actual terms (rather than the amount planned as part of the budget) is published by the end of March in those quarterly fiscal reports (released online). In other words, there are two figures: first, how much is to be paid, which is published as part of the approved budget law in early January, 10 days or so prior to disbursement; and second, how much is actually paid, which is released by the end of March, or two months after the actual disbursement. Sometimes there may be small differences between those figures as a result of fiscal/accounting procedures. However, both figures are electronically published.

        In the 2011 parliamentary elections, only three political parties out of 15 were eligible for public funding. These political parties, namely Justice and Development Party, Republican People's Party and Nationalist Action Party, were alloted a total of 109,100,370 Turkish Liras (USD 69,936,135 as of January 2011 exchange rate) in January 2011. In March 2011, these parties were allotted an additional amount of 218,200,741 Turkish Liras (USD 138,981,364 as of March 2011 exchange rate) for parliamentary elections which was held in June 2011. These political parties were given a total of 315,707,521 Turkish Liras (USD 142,210,595 as of January 2014 exchange rate) in 2014 including extra allotment for local elections.

        In 2011, the additional allotment was paid by March 18 and made public through media. In other words, the Ministry of Finance (General Directorate of Budget and Fiscal Control) does not make it public in written or verbal ways at the day when these allotments are paid to political parties. These allotments are published by the Ministry of Finance officially as a part of the next year’s budget document when the Grand National Assembly of Turkey approved the budget (in December of previous year) and then published in the Ministry of Finance General Budget Expenditures as cited in the references when the actual budget results are reported. Annual or additional allotments to political parties are transferred to their bank accounts.

        Scoring Criteria

        A 100 score is earned where: 1) complete information on the disbursements is published less than a month after disbursement, and 2) the information is available on the Internet for free or in hard copy at photocopying cost.

        A 50 score is earned where: 1) the information published is incomplete or published more than two months after disbursement, or 2) obtaining the information costs more than photocopying.

        A 0 score is earned where: 1) disbursement information is published more than four months after disbursement, or 2) no disbursement information is published or released upon request.

        Sources

        Interview with Erol Tuncer, Chairman, TESAV, Ankara, August 8, 2014. Interview with Oya Çetinkaya, Cairman, ?effafl?k Derne?i (TI Turkey Chapter), ?stanbul, August 14, 2014. Interview with Nahit Yüksel, Senior Expert, Directorate of Budget Control, Ministry of Finance, Ankara, August 8, 2014.

        "Partilere 218 milyon liral?k yard?m (218 million liras aid to political parties)," Sabah daily newspaper, March 13, 2011, http://www.sabah.com.tr/Ekonomi/2011/03/13/partilere218milyonliralikyardim

        "Partiler seçim y?l?nda 322 milyon lira alacaklar (Parties are allotted 322 million liras in the election year)," Hürriyet daily newspaper, October 10, 2013, http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/ekonomi/24895814.asp

        "Parties filling their coffers with Treasury funding ahead of local elections", Todays Zaman, January 10, 2014, http://www.todayszaman.com/news-336237-parties-filling-their-coffers-with-treasury-funding-ahead-of-local-elections.html

        Ministry of Finance General Budget Expenditures, 2004-2014. https://portal.muhasebat.gov.tr/mgmportal/faces/khbDetail?birimDizini=General+Budget+Institutions&afrLoop=670799775309719&afrWindowMode=0&adf.ctrl-state=nskyx5835182

        Nahit Yüksel, Siyasetin Kamusal Finansman? (Public Funding of Politics), Ankara: Ministry of Finance, 2007.

        Quarterly Fiscal Statistics of Central Government Agencies, portal.muhasebat.gov.tr

    • expand button!
      Indirect Public Funding
      More about category
      • expand button!
        5
        Score
        MODERATE
        In law, use of state resources in favor of or against political parties and individual candidates is prohibited.More about indicator

        The Law No. 298 includes some prohibitions concerning the public employees' electioneering activities and the use of public resources by the Prime Minister, ministers and deputies. For example, Article 63 - Officers mentioned in Article 62 and associations operating for public benefit as well as officers and employees employed therein shall be obliged to be impartial during elections. … the persons specified above (civil servants and public employees) shall, during elections, not be entitled to have their officers and servants as well as all of their equipment, supplies and facilities used for the benefit and under the order of a political party or an independent candidate or have the same operated in any political activity.

        Article 65 - During the period elapsing between the date of beginning of electioneering until the day following the election day, the Prime Minister, Ministers and Deputies shall not be entitled to make electioneering tours throughout Turkey with their official vehicles or with vehicles assigned to public service.

        However, these bans are valid only during the period elapsing between the date of beginning of electioneering which starts one week in advance of the election day until the day following the election day, and there is no clear ban on such public resources being used by these elected officials to benefit their parties or candidacies before the above mentioned official propaganda period.

        In order to secure impartiality in the conduct of elections the Constitution (article 114) requires the ministers of Justice, Internal Affairs, and Transportation to resign prior to general elections to the Grand National Assembly of Turkey. Three days before elections begin or in the event of a decision to hold new elections before the end of the election term, within five days of this decision, the Prime Minister shall appoint independent persons -non-partisan- from within or outside the Grand National Assembly of Turkey to these ministries.

        Scoring Criteria

        A YES score is earned where there is an explicit ban on the use of state resources in favor of or against political parties and individual candidates. A YES is also earned where there are clearly defined exceptions, which are accessible to all actors equally.

        A MODERATE score is earned where an explicit ban exists but it only applies to one of the two actors, even though both can be elected. A NO score is earned where no such law exists.

        A NO score is also earned where the law exists, but allows discretionary exceptions.

        Sources

        The 1982 Constitution, July 7, 1982, Article 114. global.tbmm.gov.tr/docs/constitution_en.pdf

        Law No. 298 on Basic Principles of Elections and Electoral Registry, April 26, 1961, Articles 61-66, www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/1.4.298.doc (Turkish), http://www.legislationline.org/documents/id/7010 (Unofficial English Translation).

      • expand button!
        6
        Score
        0
        In practice, to what extent are no state resources used in favor of or against political parties and individual candidates' electoral campaigns?More about indicator

        Experts argue that although the Law No. 298 prohibits the use of state resources during the official election period, there are allegations and news reports about the fact that especially the incumbent government members/mayors use directly or indirectly the material as well as personnel resources of the public agencies including the municipalities.

        In order to escape from the sanctions of the legal prohibitions, an official visit by a government member is organized and then s/he participates in an electoral campiagn activity. Besides there are allegations that public vehicles are used to transport party supporters to meeting areas and public officials and municipal workes are forced to attend such campaign activities in several places. ?ükran Somer, a columnist in Cumhuriyet daily reported that the government party's public meeting in thousands of public vehicles, mainly public buses, were provided to transport people to campaign areas on June 5, 2011. In recent local elections which were held in March 2014 the Governor of Mu? (an eastern province) issued an official letter to the whole public agencies that the official plates of all public vehicles must be replaced by civilian plates and allocated for Prime Minister Erdo?an’s official visit. This was a camouflage against the electoral prohibitions. Moreover, it was unveiled that the incumbent mayor and mayoral candidate in Malatya (a south east province) provided money from the municipal budget for his electoral campaign in 2014 local elections. Recently, Çi?dem Toker, a columnist in Cumhuriyet daily pointed out that the amount of "discretionary fund" expenditures was 14 million in June 2014 but it was figured out at 300 million Turkish Liras during July-August period in which presidenti election was held. The opposition deputies also warned the Supreme Board of Election against the possible use of this fund for electoral purposes which is legally prohibited.

        In the earlier 2011 parliamentary elections, in Manisa, a western province, AKP’s campaign vehicles were pictured at the Special Provincial Administration’s (a local administration body in Turkey, SPA) official garage and it was alleged that these vehicles’ fuel cost was paid by the SPA.

        The OSCE / ODIHR stressed in its interim report on the 2014 Presidential Elections in Turkey that "Campaign activities of the Prime Minister are large-scale events, often combined with official government events. While other candidates actively campaign, the public visibility of their campaigns is limited."

        Also, it is very widespread that public resources are used by these elected officials before the above mentioned official propaganda period. The allegations concerning such violations has been submitted to the attention of the Supreme Board of Election.

        Peer Reviewer comment: Agree. Senior politicians and administrators state that, during electoral campaigns, the resources of the ministries and municipialities as well as personnel resources of the public agencies are used directly or indirectly. This practice has been widely common. It is so common that an elected official’s visit is organized concurrent with an electoral campaign activity. Public vehicles are used and public officials and workers from the municipialities are forced to attend campaign activities.

        Interview with Feridun Yazar, Former Mayor of ?anl?urfa, Former Chairman of People’s Labor Party (HEP - Halk?n Emek Partisi), Ankara, 17 November 2014.

        Interview with a former MP who requested anonymity, Ankara, 14 November 2014.

        Interview with Nam?k Kemal Zeybek, Former Minister of Culture, Former MP, Former Chairman of Democrat Party (DP – Demokrat Parti), Ankara, 18 November 2014.

        “Müezzino?lu Ambulans Helikopterle Seçim Çal??mas?nda”, (Muezzinoglu Campaigns with Air Ambulance), Hurriyet (daily newspaper), 19 March 2014, http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/gundem/26026981.asp

        Scoring Criteria

        A 100 score is earned where there is no evidence of authorities using state resources in favor of or against political parties and individual candidates. A 100 is also earned where there are clearly defined exceptions and are equally accessible to all actors.

        A 50 score is earned where: 1) documented evidence indicates occasional use of state resources in favor of or against political parties and individual candidates, or 2) clearly defined exceptions are not equally accessible to all actors.

        A 0 score is earned where documented evidence indicates regular use of state resources in favor of or against certain political parties and individual candidates.

        Sources

        Interview with Bülent Tarhan, Senior Inspector/Consultant, Prime Ministry Inspection Board/TEPAV, Ankara, 23 September 2014. Interview with Erol Tuncer, Chairman, TESAV, Ankara, 8 August 2014. Interview with Nahit Yüksel, Senior Expert, Directorate of Budget Control, Ministry of Finance, Ankara, 8 August 2014. Interview with Oya Çetinkaya, Chairman, ?effafl?k Derne?i (TI Turkey Chapter), ?stanbul, 14 August 2014. Interview with ?ehriban O?han, journalist, Hürriyet daily newspaper, ?stanbul, 23 September 2014. Interview with U?ur Emek, Senior Expert, Ministry of Development, Ankara, 30 September 2014.

        OSCE/ODIHR Limited Election Observation Mission Republic of Turkey Presidential Election, 10 August 2014, INTERIM REPORT 9 –28 July 2014, 31 July 2014, http://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/turkey/122141?download=true

        Çi?dem Toker, "Örtülü Ödenek Geli?meleri (Developments in Discretionary Fund)," Cumhuriyet daily newspaper, 17 September 2014, http://www.cumhuriyet.com.tr/koseyazisi/120213/OrtuluOdenekGelismeleri.html.

        ?rfan Kozok, "Suçüstü yakaland? (Caught in the act)", Cumhuriyet daily newspaper, 22 March 2014, http://www.cumhuriyet.com.tr/haber/turkiye/53291/Sucustu_yakalandi.html.

        "MHP, YSK'ya ba?vurdu" (MHP appeals to Supreme Board of Election) Sabah (daily newspaper), 7 Eylül 2014, http://www.sabah.com.tr/Gundem/2014/07/09/mhp-yskya-basvurdu.

        "Belediye'nin imkanlar?yla seçim kampanyas?" (Municipal budget used for election campaign), Malatya Büyük?ehir, 18 December 2013, http://www.malatyabuyuksehirgazetesi.com/haber-4003-belediyeninimkanlariylasecim_kampanyasi.html.

        "AKP arabalar?n?n benzini ?l Özel ?daresi'nden"(AKP vehicles fueled by the Special Provincial Administration), Radikal daily newspaper, 3 May 2011, http://www.radikal.com.tr/turkiye/akparabalarininbenziniilozel_idaresinden-1048142

        "Tayyip Seferberli?i (Tayyip Mobilization)," Sözcü daily newspaper, 6 June 2011, http://gazete.netgazete.com/gazeteler_arsiv.php.

        ?ükran Somer, "Mitinge servis tamam...(Okay! Service provided to campaign meeting)", Cumhuriyet daily newspaper, 6 June 2011, http://www.cumhuriyetarsivi.com/katalog/192/sayfa/2011/6/6/7.xhtml.

        "Tunceli’de seçim öncesi beyaz e?ya da??t?m?" (Distribution of white goods in Tunceli before the elections), Milliyet daily newpaper, 5 February 2009, http://www.milliyet.com.tr/Siyaset/HaberDetay.aspx?aType=HaberDetay&Kategori=siyaset&ArticleID=1055735&Date=05.02.2009&b=Tuncelide%20secim%20oncesi%20beyaz%20esya%20dagitimi.

        Disadvantaged angry at YSK ban on social relief ahead of elections, Todays Zaman, 12 February 2009, http://www.todayszaman.com/newsDetail_openPrintPage.action?newsId=166695.

      • expand button!
        7
        Score
        MODERATE
        In law, political parties and individual candidates have free or subsidized access to equitable air time for electoral campaigns?More about indicator

        Parties are granted access to airtime in a transparent, equitable way, but no such access is granted to individual candidates. None of the candidates for presidential, parliamentary and local (mayoral and councilor) is subject to free or subsidized air time at state radio and television channels.

        "Political parties which take part in the election may conduct electioneering activities on radio and television after the 7th day in advance of the election day until 18:00hours on the day before the election day, provided that the provisions in private laws are reserved. Political parties shall be given the following electioneering rights: a) two speeches not more than 10 minutes on the first and the last day to explain their programs and projects, b) an additional 10 minute for political parties having a group in the Grand National Assembly c) an additional electioneering time of 20 minutes for theparty having the political power or the larger one of the parties sharing the power andadditional 15 minutes for other parties holding the power" (Law No. 298 Article 52). "The broadcasts shall be regulated and audited by the Supreme Board of Elections for radios and televisions at national level and by Provincial Election Boards for local radios and televisions. No electioneering speeches shall be broadcast in any other way contradicting with the conditions specified above" (Article 52).

        "The head offices of political parties participating in the election shall notify the Supreme Board of Elections until the evening ofthe twenty-first day in advance of the election day in writing, of their intention to makeelectioneering on radio and television" (Article 53) and the Supreme Board of Elections "shall determine the time and order of broadcast amongst parties applying for radio and television broadcast, by drawing names before a representative of each of the said parties and the representatives of Turkish Radio Television" (Article 54).

        "Broadcasts made by private radios and televisions from the date of beginning of elections until the date of voting shall be subject to Articles 5, 20, 22 and 23 of Turkish Radio and Television Law No. 2954 and of Paragraph 2 of Article 31 of the same Law.The Supreme Board of Elections shall be responsible for and authorised to define theprinciples of broadcasting by private radios and televisions according to the provisions of the preceding paragraph (Law No. 298 Article 55A).

        Law No. 6112 Concerning the Establishment and Broadcast of Radios and Televisions and the Regulation Concerning the Procedure and Principles of Broadcasting reemphasize the auhority and power of the Supreme Board of Election in regulating the principles of braodcasting during the elections.

        The Law No. 6271 on Presidential Election (Article 13) requires the TRT and the Supreme Board of Elections (state radio and television) to provide impartial and equal conditions for campaign propaganda broadcast yet does not specify any time limit for candidates or parties. However, the law states that no binding rule shall be required for propaganda broadcast in the private radio and television channels. On July 19, 2014 the Supreme Board of Election issued the Decision Nr. 3377 and stated that presidential candidates shall be provided 15 minutes free air time at the first and last days of the official propaganda period.

        Scoring Criteria

        A YES score is earned where: 1) free or subsidized access to air time for electoral campaigns is granted in a transparent, equitable way, and 2) there are clearly defined eligibility criteria.

        A MODERATE score is earned where free or subsidized access to air time for electoral campaigns is granted in a transparent, equitable way, but eligibility criteria are not clearly defined.

        A NO score is earned where no such law exists.

        Sources

        Law No. 298 on Basic Principles of Elections and Electoral Registry, 26.04.1961, Articles 52 through 55A, www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/1.4.298.doc (Turkish), http://www.legislationline.org/documents/id/7010 (Unofficial English Translation).

        Law No. 2954 on Radio and Television of Turkey, 14.11.1983, Articles 5, 20, 22, 23 and 31, http://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/Metin.Aspx?MevzuatKod=1.5.2954&sourceXmlSearch=&MevzuatIliski=0.

        Law No. 6112 Concerning the Establishment and and Broadcast of Radios and Televisions, 15.2.2011, Articles 30 and 31, http://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/Metin1.Aspx?MevzuatKod=1.5.6112&MevzuatIliski=0&sourceXmlSearch=&Tur=1&Tertip=5&No=6112.

        Regulation Concerning the Procedure and Principles of Broadcasting, 3.4.2014, Article 9, http://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2014/04/20140403-1.htm

        Supreme Board of Election, Decision 3377, July 18, 2014, http://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2014/07/20140719-10.htm

        Supreme Board of Election, Decision 3124, July 2, 2014, http://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2014/07/20140705-14.htm

        Law No. 6271 on Presidential Election, January 26, 2012, http://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/1.5.6271.pdf

        Supreme Board of Election, Decision 3377, July 19, 2014, http://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2014/07/20140719-10.htm.

      • expand button!
        8
        Score
        50
        In practice, to what extent is free or subsidized access to air time provided in a transparent, equitable way to political parties and individual candidates for electoral campaigns?More about indicator

        All eligible political parties were provided with the free airtime allocations in general and local elections. During the presidential elections, the candidates are provided free air time as regulated by the Board's Decision of 15 minutes free air time at the first and last days of the official propaganda period. Although the Law No. 298 sets the criteria for air time to political parties clearly, none of the experts finds it equitable. They especially argue that before the start of official campaign period, the incumbent government members, prime Minister and ministers have been given greater time in state and private channels. During the official campaign period, which starts ten days before the voting day, the government party and its members appear in these channels due to their official status.

        According to the Report prepared by Media Monitoring Center, between January 1-June 9, 2011 period, the incumbent government party appeared in the national television for about 3000 hours and its leader Erdo?an was on TV for around 3930 hours. The Republican People's Party, the main opposition party, appeared in the tv coverages about 3930 hours and its leader K?l?çdaro?lu 1785 hours only. All figures indicated an imbalance distribution of free and paid air time among political parties.

        Both in 2011 parliamentary elections, 2014 local elections and the recent Presidential elections several television channels were fined by the Supreme Board of Election upon the Supreme Council of Radio and Television's broadcast violation reports.

        In a European Court of Human Rights case, Mr. Bask?n Oran, an independent candidate for parliamentary elections in 2007, complained of the fact that independent candidates, unlike political parties, were barred by law from campaigning on radio and television. On April 15, 2014, the European Court of Human Rights took the view that the decision to reserve election campaigning on radio and television for political parties had been based on objective and reasonable grounds and did not amount to disproportionate interference with the very essence of the right to the free expression of the opinion of the people or of an individual candidate’s right to stand for election, for the purposes of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14.


        Peer Reviewer comment: Agree. Also, during presidential campaigns, parties are not granted airtime to use in support of their presidential candidates. During the presidential campaigns in August 2014, Turkey’s state broadcaster, Turkish Radio and Television Corporation (TRT), stated that they had been acting within the existing legal framework covering Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s public speeches as prime minister, not as a presidental candidate. According to TRT, that was the reason why they did not provide equitable coverage for other candidates. Subsequently, Radio and Television Supreme Council (RTUK) defended TRT stating that TRT did not have to provide equitable time to presidential candidates, because the prime minister and the other two candidates were not equal. One of the presidental candidates, Selahattin Demirtas, was very sarcastic against the TRT when he was allowed to broadcast his campaign speech over the state broadcaster on August 3, 2014. He sarcastically stated that he was experiencing the joy and excitement to be on the screens of that totally impartial and objective organization which had approached all the presidental candidates on equal terms.

        Scoring Criteria

        A 100 score is earned where: 1) free or subsidized access to media advertising is always provided in a transparent and equitable way, and 2) the defined eligibility criteria are applied consistently.

        A 50 score is earned where: 1) free or subsidized access to media advertising is usually provided in a transparent and equitable way, but exceptions exist, or 2) the eligibility criteria are not always applied.

        A 0 score is earned where: 1) there's rarely free or subsidized access to air time for political campaign, and 2) access exists but is not provided in a transparent, equitable way.

        Sources

        Interview with Erol Tuncer, Chairman, TESAV, Ankara, August 8, 2014. Interview with Oya Çetinkaya, Chairman, ?effafl?k Derne?i (TI Turkey Chapter), ?stanbul, August 14, 2014. Interview with Nahit Yüksel, Senior Expert, Directorate of Budget Control, Ministry of Finance, Ankara, August 8, 2014. Interview with Bülent Tarhan, Senior Inspector/Consultant, Prime Ministry Inspection Board/TEPAV, Ankara, September 23, 2014. Interview with ?ehriban O?han, journalist, Hürriyet daily newspaper, ?stanbul, September 23, 2014. Interview with Bekir A??rd?r, General Director of KONDA Survey Company, ?stanbul, September 23, 2014.

        European Court of Human Rights, AFFAIRE ORAN c. TURQUIE (Requêtes nos 28881/07 et 37920/07), Strasbourg, 15 April 2014, http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx#{"itemid":["001-142188"]}

        Siyasi partilerin Seçim Dönemi Reklam Analizi 2011 (Analysis of Air Time by Political parties During Campaign Period 2011), 20 June 2011, http://reklamalemi.tumblr.com/post/6716132074/siyasi-partilerin-secim-donemi-reklam-analizi

        "YSK'dan 11 kanala ceza" (Supreme Board of Election fines 11 tv channels), Hürriyet daily newspaper, 12 May 2011, http://hurarsiv.hurriyet.com.tr/goster/haber.aspx?id=17766629&tarih=2011-05-12

        "RTÜK “?hlal var” dedi raporu YSK’ya gönderdi (Supreme Council of Radio and Television finds violations and sends the Report to Supreme Board of Election)," Hürriyet dialy newspaper, 13 March 2014, http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/gundem/25995306.asp

        "YSK'dan kanallara ceza ya?d?" (Supreme Board of Election fines tv channels), Cumhuriyet daily newspaper, 16 April 2014, http://www.cumhuriyet.com.tr/haber/turkiye/61389/YSKdankanallaracezayagdi.html

        "YSK'dan televizyonlara seçim cezas?" (Supreme Board of Elections fines televisions for election violations), 20 August 2014, http://ilerihaber.org/yskdan-televizyonlara-secim-cezasi/627/

        OSCE/ODIHR Limited Election Observation Mission, Republic of Turkey Presidential Election, 10 August 2014 Final Report, Warsaw 18 November 2014, http://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/turkey/126851?download=true

        Reviewer's sources: “RTÜK: Ba?bakan ile Di?er Adaylar E?it Olabilir mi?” (RTUK: Can Prime Minister and the Other Candidates be Equal?), bianet news site, 12 July 2014, http://www.bianet.org/biamag/medya/157163-rtuk-basbakan-ile-diger-adaylar-esit-olabilir-mi

        “Demirta?’ta ?mal? TRT Sitemi” [Demirtas’s Implicit TRT Reproach], Milliyet daily newspaper, 4 August 2014, http://www.milliyet.com.tr/Milliyet-Tv/nevidyo/video-izle/Demirtas-ta-imali-TRT-sitemi-QAEqmqzZx4ZF.html

  • expand button!

    Contribution and Expenditure Restrictions

    More about category
    composite
    38
    • expand button!
      General Rules on Electoral Campaign Contributions
      More about category
      • expand button!
        9
        Score
        MODERATE
        In law, cash contributions are banned.More about indicator

        Article 66 of Law No. 2820 regulates the procedure of receiving donations from the natural and legal persons, stating "the voucher provided by the party should clearly indicate that the donation or donations belong to the donor or his authorized representative or deputy. Donations in the absence of such document cannot be accepted by the political parties."

        Cash donations up to 1000 Turkish Liras shall be collected in return of a voucher identifying the donor just for the presidential candidates. As described at Question 13, the upper limit for donations to political parties is about 32.000 Turkish Liras in 2014 and donotions to political parties can be made either in cash in return of a voucher or deposited in the bank amount.

        However, a voucher is not issued by the party/party officer for donation made directly to the party's bank account because the identity of the donor (ID number and the full name) is issued on the bank receipt.

        Contributions to individual candidates at local and general elections are not regulated by law. For presidential elections, donors deposit their contributions above certain amount which is determined by the Supreme Board of Elections in a bank account (“Election Account”) opened by each candidate (Law No. 6271 Article 14). The Board issued that donations above 1000 Turkish liras (444,44 USD as of September 25, 2014) must be deposited in the bank accounts of the candidates. Donations below this ceiling can be collected in return for a voucher and the full identity of the donor shall be registered in a uniform form provided by the Board.

        Scoring Criteria

        A YES score is earned where cash contributions are banned and all financial contributions must be made via the banking system.

        A MODERATE score is earned where cash contributions are allowed up to a maximum limit, regardless of the limit.

        A NO score is earned where no such law exists.

        Sources

        Law No. 2820 on Political Parties, April 22, 1983, Article 66, http://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/1.5.2820.pdf

        Law No. 6271 on Presidential Election, January 26, 2012, Article 14, http://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/1.5.6271.pdf

      • expand button!
        10
        Score
        MODERATE
        In law, there is a ban on anonymous contributions.More about indicator

        As described above, both Law No. 2820 and Law No. 6271 prohibit anonymous contributions for political parties and presidential candidates. However, there is no regulation for candidates for local and parliamentary elections.

        Scoring Criteria

        A YES score is earned where the law stipulates that anonymous contributions are banned.

        A MODERATE score is earned where the ban exists, but it applies only to one actor (whether political parties or individual candidates). A MODERATE score is also earned where small anonymous donations are allowed up to a maximum threshold equal to or less than the equivalent to US$300.

        A NO score is earned where no such law exists.

        Sources

        Law No. 2820 on Political Parties, April 22, 1983, Article 66, http://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/1.5.2820.pdf

        Law No. 6271 on Presidential Election, January 26, 2012, Article 14, http://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/1.5.6271.pdf

      • expand button!
        11
        Score
        MODERATE
        In law, in-kind donations to political parties and individual candidates must be reported.More about indicator

        According to Article 74 of Law No. 2820, financial audits of political parties shall be performed by the Constitutional Court. The chairpersons of political parties are obliged to send an approved copy of the final account which has been decided upon and incorporated, as well as the approved copy of the final accounts of the party headquarters and the provincial organizations – which also include their affiliated township organizations, to the Constitutional Court by the end of June annually and to the Office of the Chief Public Prosecutor or the Court of Cassation for information. Lists indicating the values of the immovable property, movable property worth over one thousand Turkish liras, securities and all equities acquired by the political party during the same accounting period, as well as the date and manner in which they have been acquired shall be annexed to these documents. As such, It is implicitly required that political parties, at a minimum, must report in-kind donations above the value of 1000 Turkish LIra (USD 448).

        The Law No. 6216 on the Establishment of the Constitutional Court and Its Trial Procedures which includes provisions on "Financial Supervision of Political Parties" does not specify anything related to in-kind donations (Articles 55 and 56).

        Law No. 6271 (Article 14/6) requires all presidential candidates to register donations, aids and expenditures to be made during the campaign period in the lists approved by the Supreme Board of Elections and return the information and documents related to the donations, contributions and expenditures within ten days following the certification of electoral results to the Board. Although the Law refers to the phrases such as "donations" and "aid" to the candidates, it is unclear whether these terms include in-kind donations or not. However, the Board assured in the Circular 201 that presidential candidates cannot accept in-kind contributions.

        Contributions to individual candidates at local and parliamentary elections are not regulated.

        Scoring Criteria

        A YES score is earned where all in-kind donations must be reported to the oversight authority.

        A MODERATE score is also earned if the requirement to report such information exists, but applies only to one actor (whether political parties or individual candidates).

        A NO score is earned where no such law exists.

        Sources

        Law No. 2820 on Political Parties, April 22, 1983, Article 74, http://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/1.5.2820.pdf

        Law No. 6216 on the Establishment of the Constitutional Court and Its Trial Procedures, 3.04.2011, Articles 55 and 56, http://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/1.5.6216.pdf

        Law No. 6271 on Presidential Election, January 26, 2012, Article 14/6, http://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/1.5.6271.pdf

        Supreme Board of Election, Circular 201, June 6, 2014, http://www.ysk.gov.tr/ysk/content/conn/YSKUCM/path/Contribution%20Folders/Genelgeler/CBS-Ornek201.pdf

        Supreme Board of Election, Decision 2911, June 10, 2014, http://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2014/06/20140610-15.htm

      • expand button!
        12
        Score
        NO
        In law, loans to political parties and individual candidates must be reported.More about indicator

        Article 67 of Law 2820 states, "Political parties shall not engage in commercial activities, get loan or credit. However, in order to meet their needs, they may purchase goods in exchange for on credit or mortgage from natural or legal persons other than the ones mentioned in the paragraphs 1 and 3 of the Article 66."

        The Law No. 6271 does not regulate "loan" or "credit" for presidential candidates.

        There is no regulation for candidates for local and parliamentary elections. Therefore, reporting loans is not an item in Turkish context.

        Scoring Criteria

        A YES score is earned where all loans must be reported to the oversight authority.

        A MODERATE score is earned where loans must be reported, but the requirement applies only to one actor (whether political parties or individual candidates).

        A NO score is earned where no such law exists.

        Sources

        Law No. 2820 on Political Parties, April 22, 1983, Article 67, http://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/1.5.2820.pdf

        Law No. 6271 on Presidential Election, January 26, 2012, http://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/1.5.6271.pdf

    • expand button!
      Limits on Contributions and Expenditures during Electoral Campaign Periods
      More about category
      • expand button!
        13
        Score
        MODERATE
        In law, contributions from individuals are limited to a maximum amount.More about indicator

        Contributions from individuals to political parties and presidential candidates are limited. Article 66 of Law 2820 states: "The "eligible natural and legal persons cannot make more than two thousand Turkish Liras worth of cash and non-cash donations in one year." This amount shall be revalued each year. In 2014, the upper limit for donations to political parties is 31.917 Turkish Liras (14,185 USD as of September 25, 2014).

        Law No. 6271 states that each natural person of Turkish nationality can contribute to every presidential candidate up to the monthly gross salary of the highest civil servant for each round (Article 14). As of January 2014 the gross monthly salary of the undersecretary of the Prime Ministry who served for 45 years in public service was 9,871 Turkish Liras. However, the Supreme Board of Election set the ceiling as 9,082 Turkish Liras (4,036 USD as of September 25, 2014).

        There is no regulation concerning contributions to candidates for local and parliamentary elections.

        Scoring Criteria

        A YES score is earned where: 1) individuals may not contribute more than a maximum amount established by the law.

        A MODERATE score is earned where a maximum amount exists, but it applies only to contributions for one actor (whether political parties or individual candidates). A MODERATE score is also earned where individuals are forbidden from making any contribution.

        A NO score is earned where no such law exists.

        Sources

        Law No. 2820 on Political Parties, April 22, 1983, Article 66, http://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/1.5.2820.pdf

        Law No. 6271 on Presidential Election, January 26, 2012, Article 14, http://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/1.5.6271.pdf

      • expand button!
        14
        Score
        MODERATE
        In law, contributions from corporations are limited to a maximum amount.More about indicator

        Corporations eligible to make donations to political parties are subject to the same amounts as described above (Law No. 2820 Article 66). The law states that they may not contribute more than two thousand liras annually, but the upper limit is revised each year. The current limit stands at 31,917 Turkish Liras (USD 14,185) Law No. 6271 does not permit corporations to donate presidential candidates (Article 14). There is no regulation concerning contributions to candidates for local and parliamentary elections.

        Scoring Criteria

        A YES score is earned where: 1) corporations may not contribute more than a maximum amount established by the law.

        A MODERATE score is earned where a maximum amount or ban exists, but it applies only to contributions for one actor (whether political parties or individual candidates). A MODERATE score is also earned where corporations are forbidden from making any contribution.

        A NO score is earned where no such law exists.

        Sources

        Law No. 2820 on Political Parties, April 22, 1983, Article 66, http://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/1.5.2820.pdf

        Law No. 6271 on Presidential Election, January 26, 2012, Article 14, http://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/1.5.6271.pdf

      • expand button!
        15
        Score
        MODERATE
        In law, contributions from foreign sources are banned.More about indicator

        Political parties shall not receive cash or non-cash aid and donation for any reason from foreign countries, international institutions, legal and natural persons who are not Turkish nationals. (Law No. 2820 Article 66/last). Political parties that accept aid from foreign states, internationalinstitutions and persons and corporate bodies of non-Turkish nationality shall be dissolved permanently. (1982 Constitution, Article 69/10).

        Presidential candidates cannot accept financial assistance from foreign states, international institutions, corporate bodies and natural persons of non-Turkish nationality. (Law No. 6271 Article 14/1).

        There is no regulation on contributions from foreign sources to candidates at local and parliamentary elections.

        Scoring Criteria

        A YES score is earned where it is forbidden for political parties and individual candidates to receive contributions (financial or in-kind) from foreign sources.

        A MODERATE score is earned where: 1) the ban exists but it applies only to one actor (whether political parties or individual candidates), or 2) contributions from foreign sources are allowed to a maximum amount.

        A NO score is earned where no such law exists.

        Sources

        1982 Constitution Article 69/10, http://global.tbmm.gov.tr/docs/constitution_en.pdf

        Law No. 2820 on Political Parties, April 22, 1983, 66/last, http://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/1.5.2820.pdf

        Law No. 6271 on Presidential Election, January 26, 2012, Article 14/1, http://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/1.5.6271.pdf

      • expand button!
        16
        Score
        MODERATE
        In law, contributions from third-party actors (unions, foundations, think tanks, political action committees, etc.) are limited to a maximum amount or banned.More about indicator

        Third party contributions to political parties and candidates, including presidential, parliamentary and local elections, are not regulated by a specific law in Turkey. However, there are some provisions related to third party contributions in Law Nos. 298, 2820, 4688 and 5253.

        Law No. 2820 (Article 66) states that "public institutions with general and annex budgets, local governments and village headmenships, public economic enterprises, banks and other institutions established by special laws or authorization granted by special laws, undertakings which are not considered as public economic enterprises however the paid capital of which partially belongs to the State or institutions, administrations, enterprises, banks or agencies belonging to organizations mentioned in this paragraph agencies belonging to organizations mentioned in this paragraph bodies can by no means donate any movable or immovable properties or cash or equities rights and cannot waive the use of such properties or equities rights without any charge; they cannot be involved in any disposition concerning the transfer of non-cash rights to political parties beyond the provisions of law they are subject to. This provision prevents public (state) institutions/agencies/organizations to involve in "political activities."

        Public professional organizations, labor unions and employers’ associations and their higher bodies organizations, associations, foundations and cooperatives can provide aids and donations to political parties provided that they comply with the provisions included in their special laws.

        In this respect, The Constitutional Court annulled the provision of Law No. 5253 on Associations (Article 10) regulating the donations from the assocaitions to political parties with the reason that an association may receive aid from a foreign source and transfer it to a political party.

        Although Law No. 6356 on Unions and Collective Bargaining Agreements (Article 28) prohibits trade unions to receive donation and aid from political parties it does not have any provision concerning contributions from unions to political parties. Law No. 4688 (Article 20) prohibits unions of public employees to contribute to political parties and receive aid from them.

        Besides Law Nos. 1163 and 5737 do not have any provision permitting or restricting contribution from cooperatives and foundations to political parties/candidates.

        There is no regulation on contributions from such organizations to candidates at local and parliamentary elections. The eligible organizations stated above shall contribute to political parties about 32.000 Turkish Liras (14.415 USD) in 2014.

        Finally Law No. 298 (Article 55/B) prohibits, in general elections for deputies, to make statements, after the date of beginning of election, in favour of or against a political party or candidate or in a manner to influence the votes of citizens in any way howsoever, through written, verbal, visual press and media as well as various means of publication or to make public polls, questionnaires, estimations, through information and communication telephones, under any name, including mini referendum; and the parties are forbidden from distributing gifts and give-aways other than promotional brochures and handouts, or have the same distributed through third parties or organisations.


        Peer Reviewer comment: Agree. On the whole, the types of third parties expressly restricted from contributing to parties are i- those institutions listed in the Law on Political Parties, ii- associations and iii- unions of public employees. Therefore, not all contributions from third-party actors are limited to a maximum amount or banned, hence the MODERATE score.

        Scoring Criteria

        A YES score is earned where: 1) third-party actors may not contribute more than a maximum amount established by the law, or 2) are forbidden from making any contribution.

        A MODERATE score is earned where: 1) the maximum amount or ban exists only for the majority of third-party actors, but not all, or 2) the maximum amount or ban exists, but applies only to contributions for either political parties or individual candidates.

        A NO score is earned where no such law exists.

        Sources

        1982 Constitution Article 69/10, http://global.tbmm.gov.tr/docs/constitution_en.pdf

        Law No. 1163 on Cooperatives, 24 April 1969, www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/1.5.1163.doc

        Law No. 2820 on Political Parties, April 22, 1983, 66, http://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/1.5.2820.pdf

        Law No. 4688 on Union of Public Employees and Collective Bargaining, 25 June 2001, Article 20, http://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/1.5.4688.pdf

        Law No. 5253 on Associations, 4.11.2004, Article 10, http://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/1.5.5253.pdf

        Law No. 5737 on Foundations, 20 February 2008, http://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/1.5.5737.pdf

        Law No. 6271 on Presidential Election, January 26, 2012, Article 14/1, http://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/1.5.6271.pdf

        Law No. 6356 on Unions and Collective Bargaining Agreements, 7 November 2012, Article 28, http://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2012/11/20121107-1.htm

        Sendika ve Konfederasyonlar?n Denetim Esaslar? ve Tutacaklar? Defterler ile Toplu ?? Sözle?mesi Sicili hakk?nda Yönetmelik (Regulation Concerning the Principles of the Audit for Unions and Confederations and the Bookkeeping and the Registry of Collective Agreement), Official Gazette 26.11.2013 Issue: 28833, Article 7-9, http://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/Metin.Aspx?MevzuatKod=7.5.19053&MevzuatIliski=0&sourceXmlSearch=

        The Constitutional Court Annullment Decision on some provisions of the Law No. 5253, 5.04.2007, Official Gazette 22.11.2007 Issue: 26708, http://www.kararlaryeni.anayasa.gov.tr/Karar/Content/ad0662c7-f2c6-4723-be6e-bfdac57a4f96?excludeGerekce=True&wordsOnly=False

      • expand button!
        17
        Score
        NO
        In law, election campaign spending by political parties and individual candidates is limited to a maximum amount.More about indicator

        Although the 1982 Constitution requires the legislature to regulate campaign spending, no regulation specifying an upper limit for campaign spending by political parties and individual candidates for presidential, parliamentary and local elections exists.

        Scoring Criteria

        A YES score is earned where it is forbidden for political parties and individual candidates to spend more than a certain amount in a political campaign.

        A MODERATE score is earned where the maximum amount exists, but it applies only to one actor (whether political parties or individual candidates).

        A NO score is earned where no such law exists.

        Sources

        1982 Constitution Article 69/10, http://global.tbmm.gov.tr/docs/constitution_en.pdf

        Law No. 2820 on Political Parties, April 22, 1983, Article 66/last, http://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/1.5.2820.pdf

        Law No. 6271 on Presidential Election, January 26, 2012, Article 14, http://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/1.5.6271.pdf

      • expand button!
        18
        Score
        --
        Open Question: Do the national laws regulating political finance also apply to sub-national units? If not, to what extent do sub-national units have laws regulating political finance?More about indicator

        Law Nos. 298 and 2820 are the basic frameworks applicable to parties' organizations at all levels, national (central pary organization), provincial and township branches. First of all, organs of political parties at every level are obliged to keep a membership register, a book of decisions, a register for incoming and outgoing documents, an income and expenditure book and an inventory list (Article 60). Secondly, "records of serial and sequence numbers of revenue receipts that have been printed and delivered to the party organizational levels shall be kept at the party headquarter. Party organizational levels shall have financial liability toward the central decision-making and administrative board of the party due to the received and used receipts" (Article 69). Thirdly, "the party organization is obliged to submit the account of the party’s revenues and expenditures to the upper level to which they are affiliated within the period specified in the party’s statute" (Article 70).

        Finally,"the chairpersons of political parties are obliged to send an approved copy of the final account which has been decided upon and incorporated, as well as the approved copy of the final accounts of the party headquarters and the provincial organizations – which also include their affiliated districts - to the Constitutional Court by the end of June annually and to the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office for the Supreme Court of Appeal for information." Besides, the Law No. 2820 refers to provincial organization (highest local organization) in terms of financial procedures and auditing (Articles 71, 73 and 75).

        Law No. 6271 does not specify anything about party organizations reporting during the presidential elections. It is assumed that the relevant provisions of the Law No. 2820 stated above shall apply to the presidential elections, too. The Court's review on this year's parties' accounts will be illustrative of the practice.

        Scoring Criteria

        Please describe the applicability of national political finance regulations at the sub-national level, being sure to answer: 1) whether national laws are applicable to sub-national campaigns; 2) if not, to what extent do sub-national units have similar laws regulating political finance; and 3) whether there are any reports of problems arising from gaps in this framework.

        Sources

        Law No. 298 on Basic Principles of Elections and Electoral Registry, April 26, 1961, www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/1.4.298.doc (Turkish), http://www.legislationline.org/documents/id/7010 (Unofficial English Translation).

        Law No. 2820 on Political Parties, April 22, 1983, Articles 69, 70, 71 through 75, http://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/1.5.2820.pdf

        Law No. 6271 on Presidential Election, January 26, 2012, Article 14, http://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/1.5.6271.pdf

        Nahit Yüksel, Siyasetin Kamusal Finansman? (Public Funding of Politics), Ankara: Ministry of Finance, 2007.

        Interview with Ali R?za Ayd?n, Former Rapporteur of the Constitutional Court, Ankara, September 25, 2014.

      • expand button!
        19
        Score
        --
        Open Question: What are the predominant sources of funding for electoral campaigns?More about indicator

        According to the Constitutional Court's financial review reports on the parties' annual accounts about 85-90 percent of the annual revenues of the big parties was mainly gererated from the annual state aid. This is also the main source for campaign finance for these major parties. Donations and incomes from other sources such as revenues obtained through the sale of party flag, pennant, badge or any other insignias and sale of party publications are the second largest source of income for these parties (15-20 percent). Membership fees are not colleceted by the big parties regularly and constitutes only 1-5 percent of the annual revenues. Nomination fee is paid by a candidate for nomination at local and parliamentary elections and varied between 500 to 3000 Turkish Liras during the 2011 parliamentary elections. Political parties cannot be engaged in commercial activities (Law No. 2820 Article 67) but may get revenue from their immovable provided that it is in line with their purposes (Law No. 2820 Article 68). However, this is not a regular source of income for political parties. Donations and membership fees are the major sources of income for those political parties which do not receive state aid annually. A few political parties have revenues from their immovables or bank accounts. In-kind contributions during election campaigns are widely used by all political parties yet did not appear in their annual accounts properly. This is mainly due to the fact that political parties fail to convert the monetary value of an in-kind contribution obtained without a receipt or invoice.

        Since campaign finance of candidates is not regulated by law there is no official data about the pattern of funding of an individual candidate in an election campaign. According to a survey result (Gençkaya 2009) sometimes political parties allocate money to their local organizations for organizing campaign activities for individual candidates. Candidates may reserve some budget from their own pocket if s/he is rich; get support from family members/relatives/friends/social networks etc. either in cash but essentially in-kind such as organizing lunch or dinner, vehicle tours around the city, printing posters at their friends' printing house etc. The ratio of individual candidate's budget within the whole campaign campaign funding may vary from region to region and from party to party. According to another survey (Orçun and Demirta? 2013) conducted in ?zmir province -the third largest city in Turkey- during the 2011 parliamentary elections, the candidates' sources of campaign fund included sale of property or car, bank credit etc. Te candidates from the government party reserved individual sources less than the opposition parties and independents. This means that candidates from the government party may have a variety of sources of campiagn finance as described above. The amount of individual campaign fund also varied in accordance with the seize of the party from which a candidate is nominated , candidate's ranking in the ballot list. In any case, all of the individual candidates are not subject to report their incomes and revenues which still constitute the major loophole in political funding in Turkey.This is an unregistered "soft money" which is difficult to estimate.

        Besides it is widely discussed that percentages from land development, procurement and similar transactions and/or partisan construction company owners' in-kind contributons directly or indirectly to parties' activities including social relief to poor neighborhoods under the guidance of these political parties became another major source of "soft money." It is also argued that fund raising resources for social aid has been used for Islamic conservative politics in recent Turkish politics, e.g. Lighthouse case in Germany was connected to the Justice and Development Party. Relious orders and communities as well as petro dollar of the Gulf capital are repeatedly counted as the sources of funding for some conservative parties in Turkey. These can be regarded as "third party" funding illegally. Therefore, the GRECO urges Turkey to ensure that annual accounts of political parties include a) income received and expenditure incurred individually by elected representatives and candidates of political parties for political activities linked to their party, including electoral campaigning, and b) as appropriate, the accounts of entities related, to political parties or otherwise under their control.

        The presidential candidates accounts were not reviewed by the Supreme Board of Elections yet therefore there is no official data to describe a pattern for this. The Law No. 6271 (Article 14) defines donations as the main source of income for presidential candidates. However, the Supreme Board of Election enabled the political parties organize campaign activities for the candidates which is not regulated by the Law. Although the Law 6271 does not include a direct state funding for presidential candidates, they became able to use the state aid indirectly by means of the parties' presidential campaign activities.

        Scoring Criteria

        Please describe the important sources of funding for electoral campaigns, being sure to answer: 1) where does the preponderance of funding come from - public, individual, corporate, or other; 2) to what extent do individual candidates self-finance; and 3) do political parties have other methods of generating campaign funds, such as owning their own businesses or trusts.

        Sources

        Interview with Nahit Yüksel, Senior Expert, Directorate of Budget Control, Ministry of Finance, Ankara, August 8, 2014. Interview with Ali R?za Ayd?n, Former Rapporteur of the Constitutional Court, Ankara, September 25, 2014.

        Vedat Koçal, "AK Parti'nin Siyasal Sosyolojisi (Political Sociology of Justice and Development Party)," in Nafiz Tok, Mehmet Özel, Vedat Koçal (eds.), Yeni Sa?, Küreselle?me ve Türkiye, Türkiye'nin AK Parti'li Y?llar? (New Right, Globalization and Turkey, Turkey's AK Party Year)," Ankara: Orion Kitabevi, 2014, 19-128.

        Mustafa Sönmez, "AKP Rejiminin ?n?aat Baronlar? (Construction Barons of the Justice and Development Party Regime)," Cumhuriyet daily newspaper, 12 November 2012, http://www.cumhuriyet.com.tr/koseyazisi/382848/AKPRejiminininsaat_Baronlari.html.

        "All Prosecutors in Lighthouse Charity Fraud Case Removed; CHP Protests," Released on 2013-03-11, http://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/25/2547723_germany-europe-all-prosecutors-in-lighthouse-charity-fraud.html

        Ömer Faruk Gençkaya, Public Funding of Political Parties: The Case of Turkey, in Marcin Walecki et al., Public Funding Solutions for Political Parties in Muslim-Majority Societies, Washington, DC: IFES, 2009, 39-49.

        Ça?atay Orçun and Mehmet Can Demirta?, “Milletvekili Adaylar?n?n Seçim Kampanyalar?n?n Finansman?: 2011 Genel Seçimlerine ?li?kin Bir ?nceleme (Financing Electoral Campaigns of Parliamentary Candidates: An Analysis about 2011 General Elections),” Ege Akademik Bak??, 13 (1): 53-62, http://www.onlinedergi.com/makaledosyalari/51/pdf201316.pdf

        Harun Gürek, AKP'nin müteahhitleri (Constructors of the Justice And Development Party), ?stanbul: Günce yay?nlar?, 2009.

        The Constitutional Court Decisions, http://www.anayasa.gov.tr/Kararlar/KararlarBilgiBankasi/

      • expand button!
        20
        Score
        --
        Open Question: Have there been documented instances of violations of contribution or expenditure limits or any of the laws mentioned above (Section 2)?More about indicator

        According to the conclusions of the 123 final reports on 69 political parties’ final accounts published on the Constitutional Court’s web page, a total of 45 violations of financial provisions of the Law No. 2820 were listed.

        These reports were completed by the Court between 2011 and September 2014. Out of 123 reports, 4 are from 2009, 55 are from 2010, 50 are from 2011, and 14 are from 2012. Briefly, the reports referred to two categories of violations: undocumented expenditures violating Article 70 of the Law No. 2820; and submission of the integrated accounts later than the required deadline or no submission violating Article 74.

        More specifically, the reports included violations of Article 70, which resulted in confiscations due to undocumented income or expenditure, and/or personal expenditures that contravened the law; violations of Articles 74 and 75, including undocumented expenditures in excess of 100 million liras (USD 44,481,200) and the failure to submit documents and integrated accounts of central and local party organizations in due time. However, no violations of expenditure limits (which are not defined in law) or contribution limits were documented.

        The Court also took 34 indictment decisions for the violations of Articles 60 (failure to keep books and notebooks) , 74 (failure to send the documents to the Court on time) and 5 (preventing investigation and inquiry related to audit). These violations are subject to the penalties described in 111/1 b (three to six months light imprisonment and fine) and c (six months to one year imprisonment and heavy fine) and 113 ("A person, who does not keep the books and record mentioned in the Article 60 of this Law herewith, shall be imprisoned for a term of six months to one year; a person who falsifies or destroys or hides such books and records shall be imprisoned for a term of one to three years.").

        Scoring Criteria

        Please list and describe all documented instances of: 1) violation of contribution limits, 2) violation of expenditure limits, and 3) financial contributions that circumvent the regulatory framework. The objective of this question is to learn more about the local context, so please explain the cases in as much detail as relevant.

        Sources

        Examination of the Court's reports for 2009-2012 period was conducted by the author of this survey exclusively from the Information Bank of the Constitutional Court's Decisions, http://www.anayasa.gov.tr/Kararlar/KararlarBilgiBankasi/

        Interview with Ali R?za Ayd?n, Former Rapporteur of the Constitutional Court, Ankara, 25 September 2014.

        Interview with Nahit Yüksel, Senior Expert, Directorate of Budget Control, Ministry of Finance, Ankara, 8 August 2014.

        Özgün Akyol and Fatma Tektüfekçi, Türkiye’de Siyasi Partilerdeki Yanl?? Muhasebe Uygulamalar? ve Çözüm Öneriler ( Accounting Errors in Political Party Accounts in Turkey and Solution Proposals), Organizasyon ve Yönetim Bilimleri Dergisi, Volume 3, No. 2, 2011.

  • expand button!

    Reporting and Public Disclosure

    More about category
    composite
    44
    • expand button!
      Reporting Requirements to the Oversight Entity
      More about category
      • expand button!
        21
        Score
        MODERATE
        In law, political parties and individual candidates report itemized contributions and expenditures both during and outside electoral campaign periods.More about indicator

        Financial audits of political parties shall be performed by the Constitutional Court. The Constitutional Court shall audit whether the asset acquisitions by political parties and their revenues and expenditures are in compliance with the law. The chairpersons of political parties are obliged to send an approved copy of the final account which has been decided upon and incorporated, as well as the approved copy of the final accounts of the party headquarters and the provincial organizations – which also include their affiliated township organizations - to the Constitutional Court by the end of June annually and to Office of Chief Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation for information (Law No. 2820 Article 74).

        The Law Nos. 2820 and 6216 do not require political parties to submit their annual final accounts in a specific standard or form explicitly. However, the Constitutional Court basically asks political parties to submit their final annual accounts in accordance with the balance sheet principle which is based on itemized listing of revenues and expenditures.

        The Constitutional Court may, at any time, ask the political parties to document information pertaining to the final accounts. (Article 75). Political parties do not submit a separate account for electoral campaign.

        Presidential candidates who are asked to register donations, contributions and expenditures to be made during the campaign period in itemized lists approved by the Board and return the information and documents related to the donations, contributions and expenditures within ten days following the official announcment of election results to the Board (Law No. 6271 Article 14/5 and 6).

        Individual candidates at local and parliamentary elections are not subject to report itemized contributions and expenditures.

        Scoring Criteria

        A YES score is earned where political parties and individual candidates are required to report itemized contributions and expenditures to the oversight authority, both during and outside electoral campaign periods.

        A MODERATE score is earned where: 1) the requirement applies for itemized contributions, but not for itemized expenditures, or 2) it applies only during the electoral campaign but not outside it. A MODERATE score is also earned where the requirement exists, but it only applies to one actor (whether political parties and individual candidates).

        A NO score is earned where no such law exists.

        Sources

        1982 Constitution Article 69/last, http://global.tbmm.gov.tr/docs/constitution_en.pdf

        Law No. 2820 on Political Parties, April 22, 1983, Articles 74 and 75, http://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/1.5.2820.pdf

        Law No. 6216 on the Establishment of the Constitutional Court and Its Trial Procedures, April 3, 2011, Articles 55 and 56, http://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/1.5.6216.pdf

        Law No. 6271 on Presidential Election, January 26, 2012, Article 14/5 and 6, http://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/1.5.6271.pdf

      • expand button!
        22
        Score
        MODERATE
        In law, political parties and individual candidates are required to report their financial information on a monthly basis during the electoral campaign.More about indicator

        Political parties do not report their financial information during electoral campaigns. Electoral financies must, in law, be integrated into the annual account and reported on an annual basis (Law No. 2820, Article 74). Law No. 6216 also repeats the similar procedures for reporting requirements for political parties.

        Presidential candidates submit their campaign accounts which cover the contributions and expenditures during the one month period defining the official campaign period. In other words, reporting can be considered a monthly requirement in practical terms. But they are not required to report any financial transactions which might be done before this period (Law No. 6271, Article 14).

        Although the Constitution requires the regulation of the campaign expenditures of individual candidates at local and parliamentary elections, they are not subject to report their financial information to the oversight authority.

        Scoring Criteria

        A YES score is earned where political parties and individual candidates must report monthly their financial information to the oversight authority during the electoral campaign.

        A MODERATE score is earned where the requirement exists on a quarterly basis. A MODERATE score is also earned where the requirement only applies to one actor (whether political parties or individual candidates).

        A NO score is earned where no such law exists.

        Sources

        1982 Constitution Article 69/last, http://global.tbmm.gov.tr/docs/constitution_en.pdf

        Law No. 2820 on Political Parties, April 22, 1983, Articles 74 and 75, http://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/1.5.2820.pdf

        Law No. 6216 on the Establishment of the Constitutional Court and Its Trial Procedures, April 3, 2011, Articles 55 and 56, http://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/1.5.6216.pdf

        Law No. 6271 on Presidential Election, January 26, 2012, Article 14/5 and 6, http://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/1.5.6271.pdf

      • expand button!
        23
        Score
        MODERATE
        In law, political parties and individual candidates are required to report their financial information on a quarterly basis outside of electoral campaign periods.More about indicator

        As described above, political parties report their financial information on an annual basis and do not submit a separate report for electoral campiagn periods as regulated by the Law No. 2820 (Article 74).

        Presidential candidates must submit a single post election report to the Supreme board of Elections (Law No. 6271, Article 14). Though the Constitution mandates that the spending of parliamentary candidatse be regulated, no regulations yet exist. As such, there are no requirements that they report their financial information at any time.

        Some political parties and presidential candidates publicize their accounts via the internet occasionally, but the information they publish provides little detail.

        Scoring Criteria

        A YES score is earned where political parties and individual candidates must report quarterly their financial information to the oversight authority outside of electoral campaign periods.

        A MODERATE score is earned where the requirement exists on a yearly basis. A MODERATE score is also earned where the requirement only applies to one actor (whether political parties or individual candidates).

        A NO score is earned where no such law exists.

        Sources

        1982 Constitution Article 69/last, http://global.tbmm.gov.tr/docs/constitution_en.pdf

        Law No. 2820 on Political Parties, April 22, 1983, Articles 74 and 75, http://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/1.5.2820.pdf

        Law No. 6216 on the Establishment of the Constitutional Court and Its Trial Procedures, April 3, 2011, Articles 55 and 56, http://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/1.5.6216.pdf

        Law No. 6271 on Presidential Election, January 26, 2012, Article 14/5 and 6, http://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/1.5.6271.pdf

      • expand button!
        24
        Score
        50
        In practice, to what extent do political parties and individual candidates report itemized financial information monthly?More about indicator

        As described above, political parties only report annually, and not in relation to elections. In Turkish legal system, there is no specific regulation for political parties’ and MPs’ campaign expense reporting. Instead, annual ordinary financial auditing of political parties exists. Political parties submit their election campaign expenditures as part of their annual accounts.

        Presidential candidates' monthly reporting is accidential due to the official campaign period of one month; they submit post elections reports within ten days following the announcment of the official election results. Candidates at parliamentary and local elections are not subject to reporting by law.


        Peer Reviewer comment: Disagree. I recommend a lower score of 25, as while presidential candidates do submit a post election report after a one month campaign period, parties do not submit any reports specific to elections, but only submit their annual reports.

        Scoring Criteria

        A 100 score is earned where: 1) political parties and individual candidates report on their financial information monthly, and 2) the reports include both itemized contributions and itemized expenditures.

        A 50 score is earned where: 1) the reports are occasionally general rather than itemized or don't contain all accounts, or 2) the reporting frequency is quarterly.

        A 0 score is earned where: 1) political parties and individual candidates rarely or never file reports, 2) the reports are filed but are rarely or never itemized or refer only to either contributions or expenditures, or 3) the reporting frequency is less than quarterly.

        Sources

        Interview with Nahit Yüksel, Senior Expert, Directorate of Budget Control, Ministry of Finance, Ankara, August 8, 2014.

        Interview with Bülent Tarhan, Senior Inspector/Consultant, Prime Ministry Inspection Board/TEPAV, Ankara, September 23, 2014.

        Interview with Ali R?za Ayd?n, Former Rapporteur of the Constitutional Court, Ankara, September 25, 2014.

        Ömer Faruk Gençkaya, Cumhurba?kan? Seçim Kampanyas?n?n Finansman?: Adiliyet, ?effafl?k ve Hesap Verebilirlik (Financing of Presidential election Campaign: Fairness, Transparency and Accountability), ?stanbul: DDA, 2014. http://www.birarada.org/kategori/yayinlarimiz"

      • expand button!
        25
        Score
        50
        In practice, to what extent do financial reports by political parties and individual candidates include all types of contributions?More about indicator

        Itemized financial reporting has been modified and some standards have been developed by major political parties. However, the number of in-kind contributions and their estimated values and the receipt for individual donations are not registered properly and consistently.

        The Constitutional Court's financial supervision decisions do not report on such details unless there is a procedural violation concerning collecting contributions. Since the Court's examination is not based on cross check of taxpayer indentification even the receipts for donations may not refer to the accurate persons. Donations – especially donations in-kind – are frequently not properly recorded. As a result, accounts tend to lack detailed and comprehensive information on the finances of the parties concerned. In-kind donations, which are widespread, especially for individual candidates at parliamentary and local elections, are not reported by political parties regularly. As mentioned earlier, indidividual candidates are not subject to reporting their campaign accounts by the law.

        As mentioned earlier, indidividual candidates are not subject to reporting their campaign accounts by the law. Individual candidates at general and local elections basically conduct their own campaign finance from their pocket individually. Since there is no legal requirement for reporting individual candidates' at general and local election do not report their campaign finance. There is no evidence that they do forward the donations they collected locally to their party headquarters. However, local party organizations may contribute to the candidates' campaign activities as a part of party's campaign activities locally and this contribution is recorded and reported as a part of the party's annual account. The party headquarters rarely and little contribute to the local party branches during and out of elections.

        Since the Supreme Board of Election has yet to complete the review of the presidential candidates (which is being done for the first time in Turkey), there is no official evidence on the comprehensiveness of their financial reports. Although the Law. 6271 permits only individual donations of Turkish citizens to the presidential candidates, it is open to question how political parties' campaign expenditures for these candidates shall be taken into account in this review process. Whether such expenditures independent from the individual candidate's personal budget shall be considered as a donation or not is unclear. However, according to the official format for donations and expenditures lists which was issued by the Supreme Board, all kinds of donations and aids to the individual candidates shall be registered including the date, the name of donor, type of expense and the amount of expenditure.


        Peer Reviewer comment: Agree. In Turkish legal system, individual candidates are not subject to providing reports of their campaign accounts. According to Law No. 2820, political parties are obliged to submit previous year’s final accounts of the party organisation, provincial and township branches of the party and a list of properties and movable properties of more than 100 TL (approximately 45 US dollars) worth and securities and all rights bought with their values and dates of purchase. According to Article 69 of the said law, political parties collect revenues with a receipt declaring the type and amount of the revenue; name, surname and the address of the donor, including the name, surname and the signature of the person who collects the revenue.

        Having said that, in practice, it is known that in-kind contributions are not registered properly. There is no proper control of in-kind contributions. A former Minister of State mentioned that this problem also stems from the embedded presence of informal economy in Turkey. The structure of informal economy and its widespread presence also affect political party financing. There is no auditing of candidates’ general elections expenditure.

        A former MP and Chairman of the Union of Chambers of Certified Public Accountants and Sworn-in Certified Public Accountants of Turkey stated that when he was an MP, he frequently submitted a bill regading this issue stressing that the candidates should be investigated and audited by sworn-in certified public accountants. However, this bill was rejected every time and never legislated. He also, highligted that the real problem is the embedded presence of informal economy in Turkey, which also has a profound effect on this issue.

        Scoring Criteria

        A 100 score is earned where: 1) reports include an itemized list of all contributions indicating their type (in-kind, cash where allowed, etc.) and amount (estimated value for in-kind contributions), and 2) contain donors' names and addresses (or other personal identifier).

        A 50 score is earned where only one of the two conditions listed in the 100 criteria is met.

        A 0 score is earned where neither condition is met.

        Sources

        Interview with Nahit Yüksel, Senior Expert, Directorate of Budget Control, Ministry of Finance, Ankara, August 8, 2014. Interview with Ali R?za Ayd?n, Former Rapporteur of the Constitutional Court, Ankara, September 25, 2014.

        Sava? Demirel, Siyasi partilerin mali denetimi (Financial supervision of political parties), Sayder, a journal of Auditors, January-March 2011. http://www.sayder.org.tr/e-dergi-siyasi-partilerin-mali-denetimi-11-23.pdf

        GRECO Third Round Evaluation Report on Turkey on Transparency of Party Funding, Greco Eval III Rep (2009) 5E Theme II, Strasbourg, 26 March 2010, http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/greco/evaluations/round3/GrecoEval3(2009)5TurkeyTwo_EN.pdf

        Reviewer's sources: Interview with Zeki Sezer, Former Minister of State, Former MP, Former Chairman of Democrat Left Party (DSP – Demokrat Sol Parti), Ankara, 18 November 2014. Interview with Feridun Yazar, Former Mayor of ?anl?urfa, Former Chairman of People’s Labor Party, (HEP - Halk?n Emek Partisi), Ankara, 17 November 2014. Interview with Mustafa Özyürek, Former Chairman of the Union of Chambers of Certified Public Accountants and Sworn-in Certified Public Accountants of Turkey, Former Accountant of Republican People’s Party, Former MP, Ankara, 19 November 2014. Law No. 2820 on Political Parties, April 22, 1983, Articles 74 and 75, http://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/1.5.2820.pdf

    • expand button!
      Availability of Electoral Campaigns' Financial Information to the Public
      More about category
      • expand button!
        26
        Score
        MODERATE
        In law, financial information from political parties and individual candidates must be available to the public.More about indicator

        The Constitution and Law No. 6271 do not require parties and presidential candidates to make their accounts publicly available. However, parties and presidential candidates are required to submit their accounts to the relevant oversight authorities, who are then required to publish their review reports as soon as the reviews are complete.

        More specifically, Law No. 6212 on the Establishment of the Constitutional Court and Its Trial Procedures, Paragraph 5 of Article 56 states that the final decision of supervision shall be published in the Official Gazette (Law No. 6216 article 56/5). The Court's reports were based on the information provided and available by political parties but do not include political parties' own reports. These decisions are also available at the Court's web page. No information can be provided before the Court's final decision. This may take approximately one year to few years.

        Some of the political parties expose their financial information online which is not legally binding nor approved figures.

        Electoral accounts together with donations, aids and expenditures of the presidential candidates shall be examined by the Supreme Board of Election within a month following the submission of the accounts . The final decision of the Board shall be publicized (Law No. 6271 Article 14/6 and 7). The Law does not specify the means of publicity but they are mostly the Board's web page and the Official Gazette.

        Individual candidates at parliamentary and local elections are not subject to reporting by law.

        Scoring Criteria

        A YES score is earned where in law financial information of political parties and individual candidates must be made available to the public, whether online or digitally within two days of request.

        A MODERATE score is earned where financial information must be made available to the public, but no requirement exists regarding cost, format or number of days within which it must be made available.

        A NO score is earned where no such law exists.

        Sources

        Law No. 6216 on the Establishment of the Constitutional Court and Its Trial Procedures, April 3, 2011, Article 56/5, http://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/1.5.6216.pdf

        Law No. 6271 on Presidential Election, January 26, 2012, Article 14/6 and 7, http://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/1.5.6271.pdf

      • expand button!
        27
        Score
        0
        In practice, to what extent can citizens easily access the financial information of all political parties and individual candidates?More about indicator

        The Constitutional Court's decisions on financial supervision of political parties are available online in pdf format (not machine readable). These reports include basically the major items of revenues as described by Law No. 2820 Article 61 and the expenditures as main categories such as rent, transportation, purchases (goods and services) etc. The Court's reports were based on the information provided by political parties but do not include political parties' own reports to the Court.

        Some of the political parties expose their financial information online which is not legally binding nor do the figures go through an approval process.The details such as identity of the donors, type and amount of each purchase etc. are not provided in the Constitutional Court's reports. These reports are available after the General Assembly of the Court approves the Reports at the Court's web page and published in the Official Gazette immediately. For example, the most recent financial report on the incumbent Justice and Development Party for 2009 calendar year was published in 2013. According to the party's unofficial disclosure about its 2011 accounts on internet 43,2 percent of its annual expenditures consisted of campaign spending.

        Briefly, the current regime is far from guaranteeing easy access to party financing information for citizens who cannot reach the details of the accounts by means of an offical request (e.g. access to information). The Greco Evaluation on Party Funding also found that "a low level of detail impoverishes the actual meaning of the information available to the public and therefore hampers the effective monitoring of party financing."

        In accordance with the Supreme Board of Election's Circular 201 dated June 29, 2014, an itemized list of donations, including the identity, date, bank account information or receipt, and of expenditures, including type, date and amount of expense, shall be registered by the candidate or his/her legal representative and submitted to the Board. However, it is unclear at present whether the Board shall publicize such detailed information of campaign accounts of the candidates or find a brief itemized report enough for publicity. A better assessment can be done after these reports shall be finalized and published by the Board in this year.

        Individual candidates for parliamentary and local elections are not subject to reporting.


        Peer Reviewer comment: Agree. The Constitutional Court decisions on the financial supervision of the final accounts of political parties (online in a pdf format) include a general presentation of the total amounts of revenues and expenditures reported by the parties in two separate sections. The rest of the text of Court’s decisions is largely structured around the Court’s inquiry into and explanation of how specific items are found in violation or in compliance of the financial obligations of parties or are in need of further elaboration, which, in the latter case, also includes the parties’ response to Court’s request of further information. This information captured by the decisions of the Constitutional Court is published in the Official Gazette and made available online relatively quickly, that is, in a few months following the Court’s reaching of the decision. However, reaching a final decision can take years, as can be seen from the exemplary sources which include the 2009 final accounts of the ruling and main opposition parties made available in late 2012 in the case of the latter and in late 2013 in the case of the former.

        Furthermore, the format of the available information, namely, the Constitutional Court decisions i- containing general annual financial information, but about a single party and thereby not enabling comparison with other parties or other time periods and ii- made available online yet presented in necessarily long and technical expository language cannot be said to facilitate easy access on the part of citizens to financial information on all parties.

        Scoring Criteria

        A 100 score is earned where: 1) all relevant financial information is freely available online, 2) it can be obtained digitally within two days of requesting it, and 3) it is in a machine readable format (for example in csv or xml format).

        A 50 score is earned where: 1) information is available but in some cases is incomplete or lacking detail, 2) obtaining complete information takes up to a month, or 3) it's not necessarily digital or in machine readable format.

        A 0 score is earned where: 1) the information is not publicly available, or 2) obtaining it takes more than three months, or 3) the cost of obtaining it is prohibitive for the regular citizen.

        Sources

        Interview with Nahit Yüksel, Senior Expert, Directorate of Budget Control, Ministry of Finance, Ankara, August 8, 2014. Interview with Bülent Tarhan, Senior Inspector/Consultant, Prime Ministry Inspection Board/TEPAV, Ankara, September 23, 2014. Interview with Ali R?za Ayd?n, Former Rapporteur of the Constitutional Court, Ankara, September 25, 2014.

        The Constitutional Court Decision on the 2009 Final Accounts of the Justice and Development Party, Official Gazette, 24 January 2014, http://www.kararlaryeni.anayasa.gov.tr/Karar/Content/ab567a58-c4b7-42eb-9582-b72dcd5800c1?excludeGerekce=False&wordsOnly=False

        Supreme Board of Election, Circular 201, June 29, 2014, www.ysk.gov.tr/ysk/content/conn/YSKUCM/path/.../CBS-Ornek201.pdf Supreme Board of Election, Decision 2911, June 10, 2014, http://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2014/06/20140610-15.htm

        "AK Parti 2011'de 161 milyon TL harcad? (Justice and Development Party spent 161 million Turkish Liras in 2011)," Zaman daily newspaper, 22 April 2012, http://www.zaman.com.tr/politikaak-parti-2011de-161-milyon-tl-harcadi1277340.html

        Secondary sources: GRECO Third Round Evaluation Report on Turkey on Transparency of Party Funding, Greco Eval III Rep (2009) 5E Theme II, Strasbourg, 26 March 2010, http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/greco/evaluations/round3/GrecoEval3(2009)5TurkeyTwo_EN.pdf

        Sava? Demirel, Siyasi partilerin mali denetimi (Financial supervision of political parties), Sayder, a journal of Auditors, january-March 2011. http://www.sayder.org.tr/e-dergi-siyasi-partilerin-mali-denetimi-11-23.pdf

        Reviewer's sources: The Constitutional Court Decision on the financial supervision of the final account of the Justice and Development Party (Adalet ve Kalk?nma Partisi – AK PART?) for the year 2009, 11.12.2013, published in Official Gazette, 24.01.2014, Issue: 28892, http://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2014/01/20140124-31.htm

        The Constitutional Court Decision on the financial supervision of the final account of the Republican People’s Party (Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi – CHP) for the year 2009, 11.07.2012, published in Official Gazette, 20.09.2012, Issue: 28417, http://www.kararlaryeni.anayasa.gov.tr/Karar/Content/e65631ea-1266-4505-8202-efb66bfe2da7?higllightText=cumhuriyet%20halk%20partisi&excludeGerekce=False&wordsOnly=False

      • expand button!
        28
        Score
        25
        In practice, to what extent is financial information published in a standardized format?More about indicator

        The Constitutional Court's decisions on financial supervision of political parties are published in a relatively mid-level standards. Donations are not itemized, nature and value of each donation is not provided as proposed by the Guidelines on Party Regulation by OSCE/ODIHR and Venice Commission. As expressed above, the expenditures are also not reported in a standardized format, and reports do not adhere to universal accounting norms. This is simply because of the weak capacity of many political parties to hire a professional expert for such purposes and insufficient legal framework to regulate the book keeping and accounting for political parties. A brief comparision between the bigger and smaller parties financial reports, such as Justice and Development Party and Rights and Equality Party cited below, demonstrate the lack of standardization across parties. The Court advised political parties to improve such incapacity in its recent decisions.

        However, in few cases, the Court provides a more detailed information for financial review from the records of the party's combined journal and ledger, such as the date, item, amount and documentation of the expenditures (see e.g.the New Party's 2010 Final Accounts).

        The GRECO Report also underlined these weaknesses in political funding system and advised Turkey "to take appropriate measures to ensure that annual accounts of political parties provide more detailed and comprehensive information on income and expenditure, including the introduction of a standardised format backed up by common accountancy principles."

        The Supreme Board of Election did not publicize the review reports of the presidential candidates of the 2014 elections yet. However, on the basis of the the itemized reporting requirement for the presidential candidates' donations and expenditures it is expected that financial review of presidential campaigns shall be published in a more standardized format compared to political parties' financial information.

        Individual candidates at local and parliamentary elections are not subject to reporting.

        Scoring Criteria

        A 100 score is earned where financial information for all political parties and individual candidates is available to the public in a standardized format.

        A 50 score is earned where only part of the information is published in a standardized format. A 50 score is also earned where the information is standardized, but it doesn't cover all political parties and individual candidates.

        A 0 score is earned where financial information is not available in a standardized format.

        Sources

        Interview with Nahit Yüksel, Senior Expert, Directorate of Budget Control, Ministry of Finance, Ankara, August 8, 2014. Interview with Ali R?za Ayd?n, Former Rapporteur of the Constitutional Court, Ankara, September 25, 2014.

        Sava? Demirel, Siyasi partilerin mali denetimi (Financial supervision of political parties), Sayder, a journal of Auditors, january-March 2011. http://www.sayder.org.tr/e-dergi-siyasi-partilerin-mali-denetimi-11-23.pdf

        The Constitutional Court Decision on the 2009 Final Accounts of the Justice and Development Party, Official Gazette, 24 January 2014, http://www.kararlaryeni.anayasa.gov.tr/Karar/Content/ab567a58-c4b7-42eb-9582-b72dcd5800c1?excludeGerekce=False&wordsOnly=False

        The Constitutional Court Decision on the 2010 Final Accounts of the New Party, Official Gazette, 26 October 2013, http://www.kararlaryeni.anayasa.gov.tr/Karar/Content/b6713b31-5a3d-486f-bfe9-da30c0f61d68?excludeGerekce=False&wordsOnly=False

        The Constitutional Court Decision on the 2011 Final Accounts of the Rights and Equality Party, Official Gazette, 9 April 2014, http://www.kararlaryeni.anayasa.gov.tr/Karar/Content/b3ae6b5d-1581-468f-9fbf-cfbc1ac972fc?excludeGerekce=False&wordsOnly=False

        The Constitutional Court Decision on the 2009 Final Accounts of the Justice and Development Party, Official Gazette, 24 January 2014, http://www.kararlaryeni.anayasa.gov.tr/Karar/Content/ab567a58-c4b7-42eb-9582-b72dcd5800c1?excludeGerekce=False&wordsOnly=False

        Secondary sources: GRECO Third Round Evaluation Report on Turkey on Transparency of Party Funding, Greco Eval III Rep (2009) 5E Theme II, Strasbourg, 26 March 2010, http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/greco/evaluations/round3/GrecoEval3(2009)5TurkeyTwo_EN.pdf

        OSCE/ODIHR, Guidelines on Political PartyRegulation, Warsaw, 2011, http://www.osce.org/odihr/77812?download=true

      • expand button!
        29
        Score
        75
        In practice, to what extent do mainstream journalism media outlets use political finance data in their reporting?More about indicator

        Media reports using officially published financial information of political parties are available in several mainstream media outlets. Furthermore, there are many individual reports in the cited newspapers/weekly magazines that refer to the Court's recent decisions, especially related to the major political parties' accounts.

        However, such reports achieve prominence only when a loophole in the law is exploited, and some violation of revenue or expenditure regulations occurs. For example, the Milliyet daily newspaper used the Court's financial report on the Republican People's Party's 2007 calendar year accounts on April 6, 2014. The Milliyet report summarizes the Court's verdict on the violation of the provisions of the Law No. 2820, concluding that Republican People's Party conducted illegal spending in 2007. The article includes several figures and information provided by the Court in its published report, including illegal payments to some television copmanies and personal purchases such as food, underwear, transportation etc.

        Soon after the 2011 parliamentary elections, the Court found illegal expenditures in the 2005 and 2006 financial accounts of the Justice and Development Party. News reports refer to the figures from the Court's report but not the details of illegal expenditures.

        Finally, in January 2014, the Hürriyet daily newspaper provided information from the Justice and Development Party's 2009 financial accounts, including figures and details of illegal expenditures. According to the news, some personal expenditures such as flight tickets of some family members of the deputies and journalists, purchase of gifts to other people etc. were deemed illegal spendings according to the Law No. 2820. There were several other news reports about the Court's financial reports on other parties as well.

        As expressed earlier individual candidates at local and parliamentary elections are not subject to submit their financial information to the relevant authorities. Therefore, newspaper coverages about individual candidates' financial information are less frequent and not based on officially available information. When the media does report on such candidates, the reporting usually involves part of a political scandal, and refers to financial/social/political connections between the candidate and business, rather than political finance information specifically. Moreover, such information appears in local media outlets occasionally.

        During the recent presidential election campaign several newspaper reports about President Erdo?an appeared in the media, but these referred to his personal wealth rather than officially published data.

        Scoring Criteria

        A 100 score is earned where at least three independent mainstream journalism media outlets have used officially published political party or individual candidate financial information as part of their reporting.

        A 50 score is earned where one independent mainstream journalism media outlet has used officially published financial information as part of its reporting.

        A 0 score is earned where no mainstream journalism media outlet has used officially published financial information as part of its reporting.

        Sources

        Interview with Nahit Yüksel, Senior Expert, Directorate of Budget Control, Ministry of Finance, Ankara, August 8, 2014. Interview with Bülent Tarhan, Senior Inspector/Consultant, Prime Ministry Inspection Board/TEPAV, Ankara, September 23, 2014. Interview with ?ehriban O?han, journalist, Hürriyet daily newspaper, ?stanbul, September 23, 2014.

        "AYM'den AK Parti'ye denetim sürprizi (Constitutional Court's surprise financial report for the Justice and Development Party)," Hürriyet daily newspaper, January 24, 2014, http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/gundem/25642654.asp

        "Seçimde reklama en çok paray? kim harcad?? (Who spent the highest amount for ads in the elctions?)," April 2, 2014, http://www.haberartibir.com.tr/gundem/secimde-reklama-en-cok-parayaki-kim-harcadi-h10901.html

        "CHP’ye 3.3 milyonluk rekor ceza (3.3. million record fine to Republican People's party)," Milliyet daily newspaper, April 6, 2012, http://www.milliyet.com.tr/chp-ye-3-3-milyonluk-rekor-ceza/siyaset/siyasetdetay/06.04.2012/1524514/default.htm

        "Anayasa Mahkemesi'nden AK Parti karar? (The Constitutional Court's verdict on Justice and Development Party)," Bugün daily newspaper, June 18, 2011, http://gundem.bugun.com.tr/anayasa-mahkemesi-kararini-verdi-haberi/159468

        "Anayasa Mahkemesi'den partilere mali denetim (Financial supervision of political parties by the Constitutional Court)," Milliyet daily newspaper, June 15, 2011, http://www.milliyet.com.tr/anayasa-mahkemesi-den-partilere-mali-denetim/siyaset/siyasetdetay/15.06.2011/1402766/default.htm

      • expand button!
        30
        Score
        0
        In practice, to what extent were there no news reports or other documented incidents of violation or abuse of political finance laws?More about indicator

        As illustrated above (questions 6 and 29), there are frequent news reports and documented instances of violationa and abuses of Law No. 298, Law No. 2820, Law No. 6271, the Decisions and Circulars on Principles Conducting Elections by the Supreme Board of Elections, and the Monitoring Reports of the Supreme Council of Radio and Television. According to the conclusions of the 123 final reports on 69 political parties’ final accounts published on the Constitutional Court’s web page, a total of 45 violations of financial provisions of the Law No. 2820 were listed. Briefly, the reports referred to two categories of violations: undocumented expenditures violating Article 70 of the Law No. 2820; and submission of the integrated accounts later than the required deadline or no submission violating Article 74. More specifically, the reports included violations of Article 70, which resulted in confiscations due to undocumented income or expenditure, and/or personal expenditures that contravened the law; violations of Articles 74 and 75, including undocumented expenditures in excess of 100 million liras (USD 44,481,200) and the failure to submit documents and integrated accounts of central and local party organizations in due time. The Court also took 34 indictment decisions for the violations of Articles 60 (failure to keep books and notebooks) , 74 (failure to send the documents to the Court on time) and 5 (preventing investigation and inquiry related to audit).

        In addition to the newspaper reports provided earlier, the Supreme Council banned the incumbent party's presidential campaign advertisements that included religious messaging and call to prayer sounds. However, this ad was broadcast nonetheless by state radio and the state television company, TRT, after the ban. Further, as documented in the sources, although the Supreme Board's Decision No. 737 prohibits the posting of flags, posters and similar items on buildings under construction, empty houses, business centers, or derelict housing, during the recent presidential elections, the incumbent party posted such items everywhere. Numerous reports of these violations appeared in the papers.

        Scoring Criteria

        A 100 score is earned where there were no news reports or other documented incidents of violation or abuse of political finance laws during the most recent national election.

        A 50 score is earned where there were news reports or other documented incidents of no more than two cases of violation or abuse of political finance laws during the most recent national election.

        A 0 score is earned where there were frequent news reports or other documented incidents of violation or abuse of political finance laws during the most recent national election.

        Sources

        Interview with Erol Tuncer, Chairman, TESAV, Ankara, August 8, 2014. Interview with Nahit Yüksel, Senior Expert, Directorate of Budget Control, Ministry of Finance, Ankara, August 8, 2014. Interview with ?ehriban O?han, journalist, Hürriyet daily newspaper, ?stanbul, September 23, 2014. Interview with Ali R?za Ayd?n, Former Rapporteur of the Constitutional Court, Ankara, 25 September 2014.

        Examination of the Court's reports for 2009-2012 period was conducted by the author of this survey exclusively from the Information Bank of the Constitutional Court's Decisions, http://www.anayasa.gov.tr/Kararlar/KararlarBilgiBankasi/

        Özgün Akyol and Fatma Tektüfekçi, Türkiye’de Siyasi Partilerdeki Yanl?? Muhasebe Uygulamalar? ve Çözüm Öneriler ( Accounting Errors in Political Party Accounts in Turkey and Solution Proposals), Organizasyon ve Yönetim Bilimleri Dergisi, Volume 3, No. 2, 2011.

        Çi?dem Toker, "Örtülü Ödenek Geli?meleri (Developments in Discretionary Fund)," Cumhuriyet daily newspaper, September 17, 2014, http://www.cumhuriyet.com.tr/koseyazisi/120213/OrtuluOdenekGelismeleri.html "Resmen Suç (Officially a Crime)," Sözcü, daily newspaper, 4 June 2014, http://gazete.netgazete.com/gazeteler_arsiv.php

        "AYM'den AK Parti'ye denetim sürprizi (Constitutional Court's surprise financial report for the Justice and Development Party)," Hürriyet daily newspaper, January 24, 2014, http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/gundem/25642654.asp

        "Tayyip Seferberli?i (Tayyip Mobilization)," Sözcü daily newspaper, June 6, 2011, http://gazete.netgazete.com/gazeteler_arsiv.php

        ?ükran Somer, "Mitinge servis tamam...(Service provided to campaign meeting)", Cumhuriyet daily newspaper, June 6, 2011, http://www.cumhuriyetarsivi.com/katalog/192/sayfa/2011/6/6/7.xhtml

        "CHP’ye 3.3 milyonluk rekor ceza (3.3. million record fine to Republican People's party)," Milliyet daily newspaper, April 6, 2012, http://www.milliyet.com.tr/chp-ye-3-3-milyonluk-rekor-ceza/siyaset/siyasetdetay/06.04.2012/1524514/default.htm

        "Anayasa Mahkemesi'nden AK Parti karar? (The Constitutional Court's verdict on Justice and Development Party)," Bugün daily newspaper, June 18, 2011, http://gundem.bugun.com.tr/anayasa-mahkemesi-kararini-verdi-haberi/159468

        "AKP arabalar?n?n benzini ?l Özel ?daresi'nden"(AKP vehicles fuel provided by the Special Provincial Administration), Radikal (daily newspaper), May 3, 2011, http://www.radikal.com.tr/turkiye/akparabalarininbenziniilozel_idaresinden-1048142

      • expand button!
        31
        Score
        75
        In practice, to what extent were there no news reports or other documented incidents of vote-buying?More about indicator

        Although allegation of vote buying especially in poor localities have been widespread, these cases are not published by the major newspapers fully and frequently. Rent-seeking in terms of renewal of old houses or real estate development are other methods of direct or indirect vote buying which are also used by political parties. It is argued that the government party made use of some social relief projects run by the government agencies, including the municipalities, to get vote. In this respect, the distribution of coal, food and detergent to the poor neighborhoods has been very wide spread especially as the elections near.

        For example, before the local elections of March 2014, it was argued that the mayor of Turgutlu, a wealthy district in the Manisa province, handed out shopping coupons worth 50 liras to voters. In July 2014, the General Directorate of Social Assistance was accused of distributing coal to the poor in Izmir before the presidential election in an attempt to win votes for the governing party.

        Before the 2011 parliamentary elections, the govermor of Bitlis who was taped for his vote buying activities during the 2009 local elections, was caught by the citizens and protested while he was visiting and asking for votes for the Justice and Development Party from the shopkeepers in Bitlis, an eastern province.

        According to media reports, Tunceli, an eastern province, governor's office distributed new refrigerators, washing machines, desktop computers and furniture to potential voters just two months before the local elections in 2009. The Supreme Board of Election a complaint to court against the governor arguing that the distribution of goods constituted a breach against the laws regulating the neutrality of public officials during the elections. Eventually, former Tunceli mayor Mustafa Yaman was sentenced to seven years in jail for distributing free white goods to poor families ahead of the 2009 local elections, yet the verdict was delayed.

        Scoring Criteria

        A 100 score is earned where there were no news reports or other documented incidents of vote-buying during the most recent national election.

        A 50 score is earned where there were news reports or other documented incidents of no more than two cases of vote-buying during the most recent national election.

        A 0 score is earned where there were frequent news reports or other documented incidents of vote-buying during the most recent national election.

        Sources

        Interview with Nahit Yüksel, Senior Expert, Directorate of Budget Control, Ministry of Finance, Ankara, August 8, 2014. Interview with ?ehriban O?han, journalist, Hürriyet daily newspaper, ?stanbul, September 23, 2014. Interview with Bekir A??rd?r, General Director of KONDA Survey Company, ?stanbul, September 23, 2014. Interview with Ali R?za Ayd?n, Former Rapporteur of the Constitutional Court, Ankara, September 25, 2014.

        “AKP, ?zmir’de yaz ortas?nda kömür da??t?yor (Justice and Development Party delivers coal in the mid of summer),” Sozcu daily newspaper, 15 July 2014, http://sozcu.com.tr/2014/gundem/akp-izmirde-yaz-ortasinda-komur-dagitiyor-556046/

        “AKP Turgutlu’da 50 TL’lik çek da??t?yor (Justice and Development Party hands out 50 liras check in Turgutlu),” Soma Kara Elmas daily newspaper, 19 March 2014, http://www.somakaraelmas.com/oren-ak-parti-turgutluda-50-tllik-cek-dagitiyor.html

        “Kömür, Makarna Yetmedi ?imdi Para Da??t?yorlar (Coal, pasta not enough they offer money now),” Lider Gazetesi, March 20, 2014, http://www.lidergazetesi.com/K%C3%96M%C3%9CR-MAKARNA-YETMED%C4%B0-%C5%9E%C4%B0MD%C4%B0-PARA-DA%C4%9EITIYORLAR-hoku-10025.html

        “AK Parti'ye oy isteyen valiye tepki (Governor asks vote to Justice and Development Party, protested),” Milliyet, daily newspaper, May 27, 2011, http://www.milliyet.com.tr/ak-parti-ye-oy-isteyen-valiye-tepki/siyaset/siyasetdetay/27.05.2011/1395452/default.htm

        "Former Tunceli governor sentenced to prison," Hurriyet daily News, December 2, 2010, http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/default.aspx?pageid=438&n=former-tunceli-governor-sentenced-to-prison-2010-02-12

        “Fak-Fuk-Fon’dan AKP’ye oy sat?n ald?lar (Fak-Fuk-Fon (Social Fund) buys votes for Justice and Development party),” Hürriyet, daily newspaper, Augut 6, 2010, http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/gundem/15502950.asp

      • expand button!
        32
        Score
        50
        In practice, to what extent do civil society organizations use political finance data?More about indicator

        Around 3-5 non-governmental organizations/associations refer to political finance related matters including public funding, funding for women candidates and campaign finance regulations. Among others, TEPAV (Economic Policy Research Foundation of Turkey) prepares economic analyses on corruption and governance; TESAV (Social Economic Political Research Foundation) publishes electoral analyses in chronological order; TESEV (Turkish Economic and Social Studies Foundation) conducts researches on party and electoral politics; KADER (Support and Training of Women Candidates) advocates women candidates. ?effafl?k Derne?i (Transparency International Turkey) researches, publishes and organizes conferences on transparency in party funding and elections. Recently, Denge ve Denetleme A?? (DDA, Check and Balances Network) advocated transparency and accountability in presidential campaign finance.

        Experts expressed that although these organizations advocate fairness, transparency and accountability in political finance, they rarely or partially use officially published financial information. They often just refer to total amounts of public funding etc, without a comparison. Most pertinently, of these organizations, Transparency International Turkey has recently launched a new project on political finance which will cover more in depth analysis based on political finance data

        Checks and Balances Network (DDA, Denge ve Denetleme A??) has recently launched a campaign titled “Transparency in Campaign and Political Party Financing”. Political finance data of parties will be used by the Network in examining the current situation of political party financing. An analysis report will be published according to these findings. Subsequently, round table discussions will be conducted and a technical team of experts will develop policy recommendations.

        Scoring Criteria

        A 100 score is earned where at least three civil society organizations have used officially published political party or individual candidate financial information as part of their advocacy or awareness work.

        A 50 score is earned where one civil society organization has used officially published financial information as part of its advocacy or awareness work.

        A 0 score is earned where no civil society organization has used officially published financial information as part of its work.

        Sources

        Interview with Bülent Tarhan, Senior Inspector/Consultant, Prime Ministry Inspection Board/TEPAV, Ankara, September 23, 2014. Interview with Oya Çetinkaya, Chairman, ?effafl?k Derne?i (TI Turkey Chapter), ?stanbul, August 14, 2014. Interview with Erol Tuncer, Chairman, TESAV, Ankara, August 8, 2014. Interview with Hande Özhabe?, Project Coordinator, Democratization Program, ?stanbul, September 22, 2014. Interview with ?brahim Betil, Coordinator, DDA, ?stanbul, September 19, 2014. Interview with Mehmet Kaya, Member of Checks and Balances Network (DDA – Denge ve Denetleme A??), Chairman of Tigris Communal Research Center (Dicle Toplumsal Ara?t?rmalar Merkezi), Ankara, 19 Kas?m 2014.

        Ömer Faruk Gençkaya, Cumhurba?kan? Seçim Kampanyas?n?n Finansman?: Adiliyet, ?effafl?k ve Hesap Verebilirlik (Financing of Presidential election Campaign: Fairness, Transparency and Accountability), ?stanbul: DDA, 2014. http://www.birarada.org/kategori/yayinlarimiz

      • expand button!
        33
        Score
        --
        Open Question: Have there been political finance legal reforms or reform bills presented to the legislature in the last 10 years?More about indicator

        The comprehensive constitutional amendments and reform packages of the late 1990s and early 2000s, together with Turkey’s candidacy to join the European Union, provided a strong impetus to “improve legislation on transparency in political party and election campaign financing” in line with European standards and best practices. Following the early election of 2002, an Emergency Action Plan of the government encouraged increased transparency in the financing of political parties.

        Turkey also ratified the European Council Civil and Criminal Law Conventions and became a member of the GRECO (the Council of Europe's Group of Countries Against Corruption) in 2003 and 2004 respectively. Moreover, in 2004, Article 90/5 of the Constitution was amended to give precedence to the ECHR over domestic law regarding fundamental human rights. A “Strategy for Enhancing Transparency and Strengthening the Fight against Corruption,” which included some provisions on campaign finance, was issued by the Prime Minister's office on December 5, 2009 as a decree (2009/19) and put into force. Within the scope of the Strategy, a subcommittee on Political Financing which was composed of both bureaucrats and academics, prepared a report for the Ministerial Committee which was responsible for coordinating the activities. The European Commission’s evaluations in the Progress Reports since 2007, and the priorities of the National Programs, positively influenced these developments.

        Since 2004 a total of sixteen individual proposals and 4 government drafts regarding some aspect of political finance were submitted to the National Assembly, and only three of them were not debated in the parliament. Law No. 5980, Amending the Law on the Basic Provision of Elections and Electoral Registry and Deputies Elections, adopted on April 4, 2010, amended Articles 55/B on Propaganda on press, communication means and internet, Article 57 on Distributing propaganda publications and material, Article 60 Places of announcement and advertisements, Article 61 Prohibitions concerning the places of announcement and advertisements.

        A governmental proposal concerning the amendments to various laws with the objective of promoting fundamental rights and freedoms combined a total of four individual proposals related to the threshold for annual state aid (Law No. 2820 Additional Article 1) together with other proposals to amend the provisions of Law No. 298 on campaign propaganda. This proposal was adopted by the parliament on March 12, 2014 (Law No. 6529). Thus, political parties which secured 3 percent of the valid votes in the last parliamentary elections were enabled to receive annual state aid.

        Earlier in 2005, a government proposal was adopted by the parliament on April 29, 2005. Law No. 5341 repealed Provisional Article 16 of the Law No. 2820 regulating the state aid to political parties which failed to enter the last parliamentary elections but secure certain number of seats in the parliament.

        In late 2010 the government submitted an omnibus bill amending or repealing some bills or adding new provisions to these bills was adopted by the parliament on February 13, 2011. Law No. 6111 introduced some new provisions to Article 74 and 66 of the law No. 2820. These changes included the scope of the Constitutional Court's review of financial accounts of political parties. It is stated that the mistakes in form and procedure shall not be a reason for the rejection of expenditures. The banned political party's accounts shall be reviewed inclusive of the period until the date of closure. Moreover political parties can do any spending related to the achievement of their objectives. Political parties can use any method of purchasing good and services. Political parties can use any effective documentation for their expenditure proving the correctness of purchase as a substitute of an invoice or equivalent documents. In cash or in kind payments related to the persons working for the party, permanent or temporary, including wages, health and social aid and their travel and per diem costs related to party's activities in and outside the country, shall be registered as expenditures. Finally, political parties can register the litigation expenses related to purchase of goods and services as expenditures.

        The final reform in this area took place by the resubmission of a government draft on presidential election and the Law No. 6217 was adopted by the parliament on January 26, 2012. These developments partially meet the GRECO recommendations, but the Second Compliance Report of the GRECO was still confidential at the time this research has been conducted.

        During the last decade, the Liberal Democrat Party’s application on the unconstitutionality of Additional Article 1 regulating state aid to political parties was rejected by the Constitutional Court 6-5 on November 20, 2008. On May 10, 2012, the European Court of Human Rights, in the Case Of Özgürlük ve Dayan??ma Partisi (ÖDP) v. Turkey, declared by a majority decision of five against two that the refusal by the State to grant direct financial assistance to the ÖDP on the grounds that it had not obtained the 7% minimum share of the vote required by the law was based on objective and reasonable grounds, did not impair the very essence of the right to the free expression of the opinion of the people, and was therefore not contrary to Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1.

        Scoring Criteria

        Please list and describe all documented instances of: 1) political finance reforms, including bills passed, executive orders signed, court rulings and any other legal act that had a direct effect on existent political finance regulation, and 2) all legal reform attempts presented to the legislature even if they were not approved. Please describe the political context that produced the reforms or reform attempts.

        Sources

        Nahit Yüksel, Senior Expert, General Directorate of Budget and Fiscal Control, Ministry of Finance, Ankara, 8 August 2014.

        Ergun Özbudun and Ömer F. Gençkaya, Democratization and the Politics of Constitution-Making in Turkey, Budapest: Central European University Press, 2009.

        Third Evaluation Round Compliance Report I on Turkey, “Incriminations (ETS 173 and 191, GPC 2)” and “Transparency of Party Funding, Adopted by GRECO at its 54th Plenary Meeting, Strasbourg, 20-23 March 2012.

        The Constitutional Court Decision on Liberal Democrat Party's application, 18 March 2009, http://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2009/03/20090318-15.htm

        The European Court of Human Rights Judgement Case Of Özgürlük ve Dayan??ma Partisi (ÖDP) v. Turkey, 10 May 2012, http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-110866#{"itemid":["001-110866"]}

        Haluk ?pek, Ankara deputy, amending and adding new provisions to the Law No. 298 and the Law No. 2839 on Deputies Election, 2/636, 15 March 2010, (combined with individual proposals numbered2/123, 2/200, 2/288, 2/304, 2/342, 2/364, 2/474, 2/596) and Law No. 5980, Amending the Law on the Basic Provisiosn of Elections and Electoral Registry and Deputies Election Article 55/B, 57, 60 and 61, http://www.tbmm.gov.tr/develop/owa/tasariteklifsd.onergebilgileri?kanunlarsira_no=81690

        Government Draft, 1/869, 5 December 2013, (combined with individual proposals numbered 2/567, 2/936, 2/1630 and 2/1666) and Law No. 6529 Concerning Amendments to Various Laws with the Objective of Developing Fundamental Rights and Freedoms, amended Additional Article 1, http://www.tbmm.gov.tr/develop/owa/tasariteklifsd.onergebilgileri?kanunlarsira_no=144816

        Government Draft, 1/1009, 12 April 2005, and Law No. 5341 Amending the Law No. 2820, Repealed Provisional Article 16 of the Law No. 2820 regulating the state aid to political parties which failed to enter the last parliamentary elections but secure certain number of seats in the parliament, http://www.tbmm.gov.tr/develop/owa/tasariteklifgd.onergebilgileri?kanunlarsira_no=31157

        Government Draft, 1/971, 29 November 2010, and Law No. 6111, on Restructuring Some Public claims and Amending the Law on Social Security and General Health Insurance and other Laws and Decrees Having the Force of Law, amended and added new provisions to Article 74 on Sending the final accounts and 66 on Donations of the Law No. 2820, http://www.tbmm.gov.tr/develop/owa/tasariteklifgd.onergebilgileri?kanunlarsira_no=87370

        Government Draft, 1/787, 21 October 2011, and Law No. 6271 on Presidential Election, http://www.tbmm.gov.tr/develop/owa/tasariteklifsd.onergebilgileri?kanunlarsira_no=95755

  • expand button!

    Third Party Actors

    More about category
    composite
    0
    • expand button!
      Applicability of the Law to Third-Party Actors
      More about category
      • expand button!
        34
        Score
        NO
        In law, third-party actors (foundations, think tanks, unions, political action committees, etc.) report itemized contributions received and expenditures to an oversight authority and the information is made publicly available.More about indicator

        No such law or any provision exists in Law No. 2820 and Law. No. 6271. However, Law No. 298 (Article 55/B) prohibits, in general elections for deputies, to make statements, after the date of beginning of election, in favour of or against a political party or candidate or in a manner to influence the votes of citizens in any way howsoever, through written, verbal, visual press and media as well as various means of publication or to make public polls, questionnaires, estimations, through information and communication telephones, under any name, including mini referendum; and the parties are forbidden from distributing gifts and give-aways other than promotional brochures and handouts, or have the same distributed through third parties or organisations. The provisions of other laws in contrary to this paragraph shall not apply. This is the only provision regulating third party activity in Turkish context.

        There is no specific law regulating third party campaign activitiy in Turkey. As expressed earlier (Q 16), the Law Nos. 298, 2820, 4688 and 5253 directly or indirectly sets some provisions related to third party contributions to political parties/candidates.

        According to Law No. 2820 (Article 66) Public professional organizations, labor unions and employers’ associations and their higher bodies organizations, associations, foundations and cooperatives can provide aids and donations to political parties provided that they comply with the provisions included in their special laws. Neither the Law No. 2820 nor other laws require these organizations to report their campaign related financial reports to any authority. These organizations are subject to internal and external auditing by different state authorities.

        Ministry of Interior audits associations and their federations and confederations, including the branches of foreign organizations, by Auditor of Associations, Inspector of Civil Administration or by governorships. According to the recent amendments to the Regulation on Associations (Article 88/5) public benefit associations are obliged to publish their balance sheets at their web page and these information shall also be published at the web page of the Department of Associations of the Ministry of Interior. Cooperatives are subject to external audit by the relevant ministries (in accordance with the area of their activities), including the Ministry of Industry and Technology, the Ministry of Agriculture, and the Ministry of Environment and Urbanization. Unions are audited by the Ministry of Labour and Social Security. Foundations’ compliance audits are made by the General Directorate of Foundations. Unions are subject to external financial audit by the certified public accountant. Unions are required to publicize their annual activity report, external audit report and the report of board of auditors by appropriate means. However, these reports does not cover the details of their spending including campaign contribution, if any.

        Scoring Criteria

        A YES score is earned where: 1) third-party actors are required to report to the oversight authority itemized contributions received and expenditures related to their support of electoral campaigns, and 2) the information must be publicly available.

        A MODERATE score is earned where third-party actors are required to report itemized contributions received and expenditures related to their support of electoral campaigns, but the information is not required to be publicly available. A MODERATE score is also earned where regulations exist, but only apply to electoral campaigns of one actor (whether political party or individual candidate).

        A NO score is earned where no such law exists.

        Sources

        Law No. 2820 on Political Parties, April 22, 1983, http://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/1.5.2820.pdf

        Law No. 6271 on Presidential Election, January 26, 2012, http://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/1.5.6271.pdf

        Law No. 298 on Basic Principles of Elections and Electoral Registry, April 26, 1961, Article 55B, www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/1.4.298.doc (Turkish),

        1982 Constitution Article 69/10, http://global.tbmm.gov.tr/docs/constitution_en.pdf Law No. 298 on Basic Principles of Elections and Electoral Registry, April 26, 1961, Article 55B, www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/1.4.298.doc (Turkish)

        Law No. 1163 on Cooperatives, 24 April 1969, www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/1.5.1163.doc

        Law No. 4688 on Union of Public Employees and Collective Bargaining, 25 June 2001, Article 20, http://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/1.5.4688.pdf

        Law No. 5253 on Associations, 4.11.2004, Article 10, http://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/1.5.5253.pdf

        Law No. 5737 on Foundations, 20 February 2008, http://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/1.5.5737.pdf

        Law No. 6356 on Unions and Collective Bargaining Agreements, 7 November 2012, Article 28, http://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2012/11/20121107-1.htm

        Regulation on Associations, 31 March 2005, Article 83/5 (added on 1 June 2012), http://mevzuat.basbakanlik.gov.tr/Metin.Aspx?MevzuatKod=7.5.8038&sourceXmlSearch=dernek&MevzuatIliski=0

        The Constitutional Court Annullment Decision on some provisions of the Law No. 5253, 5.04.2007, Official Gazette 22.11.2007 Issue: 26708, http://www.kararlaryeni.anayasa.gov.tr/Karar/Content/ad0662c7-f2c6-4723-be6e-bfdac57a4f96?excludeGerekce=True&wordsOnly=False

      • expand button!
        35
        Score
        0
        In practice, to what extent do third-party actors (foundations, think tanks, unions, political action committees, etc.) report itemized contributions received and expenditures to an oversight authority?More about indicator

        Experts argue that third party involvement in elections is one of the major issues of campaign finance in Turkey, however, it is not regulated. Transparency in the financing of presidential campaigns is in progress in Turkey, but it is not clear to what extent specific monitoring of campaign funding in such elections shall be effectively implemented especially with regard to third party involvement.

        The GRECO Evaluation Report also underlines that "while entities collaborating with political parties (e.g interest groups,political education foundations, trade unions) are under an obligation to keep accountancy records, their books are not in the public domain. It would therefore prove difficult for the public to establish possible links between such entities and political parties." Therefore, Turkey needs to "regulate transparency in the financing of parliamentary, presidential and local election campaigns of political parties and candidates and, specifically, to find ways of increasing the transparency of contributions by third parties."

        Scoring Criteria

        A 100 score is earned where all third-party actors report to an oversight authority both itemized contributions received and itemized expenditures.

        A 50 score is earned where third-party actors report to an oversight authority either itemized contributions received or expenditures, but not both. A 50 score is also earned where the reports refer only to one type of third-party actor, but do not cover others.

        A 0 score is earned where third-party actors rarely or never report itemized contributions received or expenditures.

        Sources

        Interview with Oya Çetinkaya, Chairman, ?effafl?k Derne?i (TI Turkey Chapter), ?stanbul, August 14, 2014. Interview with Nahit Yüksel, Senior Expert, Directorate of Budget Control, Ministry of Finance, Ankara, August 8, 2014. Interview with Bülent Tarhan, Senior Inspector/Consultant, Prime Ministry Inspection Board/TEPAV, Ankara, September 23, 2014.

        Ömer Faruk Gençkaya, Cumhurba?kan? Seçim Kampanyas?n?n Finansman?: Adiliyet, ?effafl?k ve Hesap Verebilirlik (Campaign Finance of Presidential Election: Fairness, Transparency and Accountability)," Democracy Barometer Analyis Report 1, ?stanbul, June 2014. https://www.dropbox.com/s/p6moyw4ro1wr5qf/CUMHURBA%C5%9EKANI%20SE%C3%87%C4%B0M%20KAMPANYASININ%20F%C4%B0NANSMANI%20-%20%C3%96mer%20Faruk%20Gen%C3%A7kaya.pdf

        GRECO Third Round Evaluation Report on Turkey on Transparency of Party Funding, Greco Eval III Rep (2009) 5E Theme II, Strasbourg, 26 March 2010, http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/greco/evaluations/round3/GrecoEval3(2009)5TurkeyTwo_EN.pdf

      • expand button!
        36
        Score
        0
        In practice, to what extent can journalists and citizens easily access the financial information of third party actors, including the political spending of those actors in support of political parties and individual candidates?More about indicator

        As described above, third party involvement in political activities in general is not regulated in Turkey. However, some political scandals may expose such relations of third parties with political processes. This is a part of investigative journalism. There are such newspaper reports that address the political activity of third party actors, but they are not based on official financial information, as no such information is publicly available. Briefly, since there is no legal obligation to register third party involvement in politics, no data is available.

        Scoring Criteria

        A 100 score is earned where: 1) all relevant financial information is freely available online or in hard copy at the cost of photocopying, 2) it can be obtained within two days of requesting it, and 3) it is in a machine readable format (for example in csv or xml format).

        A 50 score is earned where: 1) information is available but in some cases is incomplete or lacking detail, 2) obtaining complete information takes up to a month, or 3) it's not necessarily in machine readable format.

        A 0 score is earned where: 1) the information is not publicly available, or 2) obtaining it takes more than three months, or 3) the cost of obtaining it is prohibitive for the regular citizen.

        Sources

        Interview with Nahit Yüksel, Senior Expert, Directorate of Budget Control, Ministry of Finance, Ankara, August 8, 2014. Interview with Bülent Tarhan, Senior Inspector/Consultant, Prime Ministry Inspection Board/TEPAV, Ankara, September 23, 2014. Interview with ?ehriban O?han, journalist, Hürriyet daily newspaper, ?stanbul, September 23, 2014.

      • expand button!
        37
        Score
        --
        Open Question: Please describe how third party-actors (even if they are not regulated by your country's laws) obtain contributions and spend in support of political parties and/or individual candidates.More about indicator

        Third party contributions to political parties and candidates, including presidential, parliamentary and local elections, are not regulated by law in Turkey. However, as recommended by GRECO , the annual accounts of the entities related to, political parties or otherwise under thier control should be included in the political parties' annual financial reports to be submitted to the Court.

        From this recommendation, it is clear that there are some entities such as associations or foundations or platforms or informal networks campaigning in favor or against the political party(ies) or candidate(s) at local, national and/or presidential elections. Moreover, taking the prohibition set by the Law No. 298 (Article 55/B) into account, survey and broadcasting (media) companies can be potential third party actors. In fact, before the last parliamentary election of 2011 and the 2014 presidential election, a survey company representative announced the recent survey results and made a public declaration which might potentially influence the voters' preferences.

        Furthermore, as described earlier the Supreme Council of Radio and Television reported the violations of broadcasting principles set by the Law No. 298 during the last local and presidential elections explicitly, and this has been a fact during the parliamentary election, as well. Therefore, media outlets and their owner(s) or other businessmen in favor or against some political parties are also potential third parties. Besides, as described earlier on Questions 6, 19 and 31 some public officials attempt to influence the voters' preferences in one way or another, the "networks" of social aid collected domestically and abroad and the "commercial networks" in relation to central and local government procurement processes can also be regarded as third party actors.

        Scoring Criteria

        To answer this question please: 1) list the types of third-party actors that exist in your country and describe how they work to influence campaigns, 2) explain how important such actors are or not in the context of campaigns, including whether their expenditures are substantial in relation to that of political parties and individual candidates, and 3) if documented evidence indicates they circumvent laws intended to regulate political finance, please explain how and include references to the evidence.

        Sources

        Interview with Nahit Yüksel, Senior Expert, Directorate of Budget Control, Ministry of Finance, Ankara, August 8, 2014. Interview with Bülent Tarhan, Senior Inspector/Consultant, Prime Ministry Inspection Board/TEPAV, Ankara, September 23, 2014. Interview with Oya Çetinkaya, Chairman, ?effafl?k Derne?i (TI Turkey Chapter), ?stanbul, August 14, 2014. Interview with ?ehriban O?han, journalist, Hürriyet daily newspaper, ?stanbul, September 23, 2014.

  • expand button!

    Monitoring and Enforcement

    More about category
    composite
    66
    • expand button!
      Monitoring Capabilities
      More about category
      • expand button!
        38
        Score
        MODERATE
        In law, political finance information is monitored by an independent oversight authority.More about indicator

        There are two bodies legally empowered to monitor political finance in Turkey. The Constitutional Court is the body responsible for monitoring and investigating the political finance information of political parties, while the Supreme Board of Elections (SBE) is authorized to monitor the finances of presidential candidates during electoral campaigns. The SBE does not have audit or investigative powers.

        According to the Constitution (Article 69/2): "The auditing of acquisitions, revenue and expenditure of political parties by the Constitutional Court in terms of conformity to law as well as the methods of audit and sanctions to be applied in case of inconformity to law shall be indicated in law. The Constitutional Court shall be assisted by the Court of Accounts in performing its task of auditing. The judgments rendered by the Constitutional Court because of the auditing shall be final."

        Law No. 2820 (Article 74) states that financial audits of political parties shall be performed by the Constitutional Court. The Constitutional Court shall audit whether the asset acquisitions by political parties and their revenues and expenditures are in compliance with the law. The Constitutional Court shall perform its audit in the form of examination of documents and/or by way of investigation and inquiries to be conducted at the headquarters of the political parties and their local organizations directly, or by a delegated member from among its members, or by the most senior judicial or administrative judge of the in that locality to be delegated. In that respect, a sworn expert may be commissioned (Article 75).

        Law No. 6216 (Article 55) states that the Court receives assistance from the Audit Court in reviewing the legal compliance of the parties' revenues and expenditures. The Court, upon the submission of the previous year's integrated accounts by the political parties, sends the copies of these final accounts to the Chairmanship of the Audit Court. The review reports which are prepared by the Audit Court shall be forwaded to the Constitutional Court for approval. In other words, the Audit Court offers a technical review for the party accounts.

        Although the Constitution (Article 69/last) requires the regulation of campaign finance of individual candidates at local and parliamentary elections their political finance information are not subject to monitor/review by an independent authority yet.

        Law No. 6271 (Article 14/6) introduced specific monitoring of the campaign financing of presidential candidates who are asked to register donations, contributions and expenditures to be made during the campaign period –following the finalization of the candidates list by the Board until the electoral results is certified- in the lists approved by the Supreme Board of Elections and return the information and documents related to the donations, contributions and expenditures within ten days following the certification of electoral results to the Board. Candidates may assign a certified accountant or lawyer or both or several of them to register the electoral accounts and to submit them to the Board. The Board audits the financial reports submitted by the candidates, however, the Law does not refer to any second order investigative function.

        Scoring Criteria

        A YES score is earned where: 1) an independent oversight authority is mandated to monitor political finance information, and 2) the authority has investigation and audit powers.

        A MODERATE score is earned where the independent oversight authority is mandated to monitor political finance information, but doesn't have investigation or audit powers.

        A NO score is earned where no such law exists.

        Sources

        1982 Constitution, Article 69/2. http://global.tbmm.gov.tr/docs/constitution_en.pdf

        Law No. 2820 on Political Parties, April 22, 1983, Articles 69, 70 and 74-77. http://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/1.5.2820.pdf

        Law No. 6216 on the Establishment of the Constitutional Court and Its Trial Procedures, Article 6, March 30, 2011, http://www.anayasa.gov.tr/Mevzuat/KurulusKanun/

        Anayasa Mahkemesi ?çtüzü?ü (Rules of Procedure of the Constitutional Court), Official Gazette, No : 28351, July 12, 2012, http://www.anayasa.gov.tr/files/pdf/ictuzuk_son.pdf

        Law No. 6271 on Presidential Election, January 26, 2012, Article 14, http://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/1.5.6271.pdf

        Supreme Board of Election, Circular 201, June 6, 2014, http://www.ysk.gov.tr/ysk/content/conn/YSKUCM/path/Contribution%20Folders/Genelgeler/CBS-Ornek201.pdf

        Supreme Board of Election, Decision 2911, June 10, 2014, http://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2014/06/20140610-15.htm

      • expand button!
        39
        Score
        MODERATE
        In law, high-level appointments to the oversight authority are based on merit.More about indicator

        According to the Constitution (Article 146 and 147) the Constitutional Court consists of 17 members. They are selected by the Grand National Assembly of Turkey (GNAT) and the President of the Republic. Two members from among members of the General Assembly of the Court of Accounts, one member from among the self-employed lawyers by the GNAT, three members from among members of the General Assembly of the Court of Cassation, two members from among members of the General Assembly of the Council of State, one member from among members of the Military Court of Cassation, one member from among members of the High Military Administrative Court , three members from among the lecturers in the fields of law, economics and political sciences in higher education institutions, four members from among senior managers (President or members of the Council of Higher Education, rectors and deans of universities, undersecretaries, deputy undersecretaries, ambassadors and governors are regarded as senior managers in this respect), self-employed lawyers, first level judges and prosecutors and the rapporteurs, who served in these posts for minimum 5 years are elected by the President of the Republic. The election of the members from supreme courts and the Court of Accounts is made from among three nominees nominated by their general assemblies; the election of the members from the lecturers is made from among three nominees nominated by the Higher Council of Education; the election of one member from self-employed lawyers by the GNAT is made from among three nominees nominated by bar presidents.

        In order to be elected as a member to the Constitutional Court, certain merit qualifications must be met. By Article 6 of Law No. 6216, it is required that appointees to the Court be 45 years old or older. By the same article, different appointees must meet the following requirements: appointees must have held the titles of professor or associate professor (for the lecturers in the higher education institutions); served actively as lawyer for minimum 20 years (for the lawyers); to have higher education and have worked in public service actively for minimum 20 years (for senior managers); to have worked for minimum 20 years including the candidacy period (for the first level judges and prosecutors) and to have at least five years service as rapporteur of the Court.

        The elected member of the Court is required to take an oath emphasizing on propriety, integrity, imparitiality and respect for justice and to stay away from any influence and self-concern, in front of the high public officials including the President of the Republic (Law No. 6216 Article 9). However, the Law does not provide any specific provision to prevent potential/actual conflict of interest situation before election.

        For presidential candidates' campaign finance, the Supreme Board of Election is responsible for monitoring political finance information. According to the Constitution (Article 79) The Supreme Board of Election shall be composed of seven regular members and four substitutes. Six of the members shall be elected by the General Assembly of High Court of Cassation and five of the members shall be elected by the General Assembly of Council of State from amongst their own members, by the vote of the absolute majority of the total number of members through secret ballot.

        The Board members are required to take the following oath before the board before holding office:"I swear on my conscious and all my sacred values that I will perform my duty to determine the results of the election completely and correctly under the related laws, without being influenced by and under no threat of any anybody or anything" (Law No. 298 Article 27). However, the Law does not provide any specific provision to prevent potential/actual conflict of interest situation before election.

        Elections to the Court and Board are public in terms of the governing principles of appointment and the roles and responsbilities of those involved in the process.

        Scoring Criteria

        A YES score is earned where: 1) high-level appointments must be based on merit in a public appointment process; and 2) appointees must be free of conflicts of interest due to personal loyalties, family connections, political party affiliations, business partners or other biases.

        A MODERATE score is earned where high-level appointments must be based on merit in a public appointment process, but the regulations don't forbid appointments involving conflicts of interest or other biases.

        A NO score is earned where no such law exists.

        Sources

        1982 Constitution, Articles 79, 146 and 147, http://global.tbmm.gov.tr/docs/constitution_en.pdf

        Law No. 6216 on Anayasa Mahkemesi'nin Kurulu?u ve Yarg?lama Usulleri Hakk?nda Kanun, Articles 6 and 9, March 30, 2011, http://www.anayasa.gov.tr/Mevzuat/KurulusKanun/

        Law No. 298 on Basic Principles of Elections and Electoral Registry, April 26, 1961, Articles 11-14, 27, www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/1.4.298.doc

      • expand button!
        40
        Score
        50
        In practice, to what extent are high-level appointments to the oversight authority based on merit?More about indicator

        The members of the Constitutional Court are nominated by the Higher Courts, Council of Higher Education or bar associations. Criteria such as conflicts of interest and other biases are not evaluated properly during the nomination process. There is no advertised competition, and the public vetting process is also limited to general procedures for public appointment and competition is limited to the closed circles.

        Although the new system of selection/election of the Court's members seems to be more democratic, the influence of the parliamentary majority and the preference of the President of the Republic dominate. For example, the 2/3 majority rule for the selection of three members by the Grand Natonal Assembly of Turkey is effectve only for the first round which may encourage the deputies to search for a compromise based on the merit of candidates. However, in the second and third round an absolute majority is sufficient to elect a member. Therefore, although it looks more democratic, this procedure can and does result in partisan tendencies on the part of appointees. This become more critical when it is considered that the President of the Republic shall select 14 members from among the candidates who are mainly determined by an electoral college method from the sources explained above. Ergun Özbudun, the constitutional law professor argued that in European democracies the parliaments have greater power to elect the members of the Supreme Court vis a vis the Head of the State.

        Following the constitutional referendum of the 2010 two notable cases of the election to the Constitutional Court were witnessed. It is argued that the election of Mr. Celal Mümtaz Ak?nc?, former Bar President of Afyonkarahisar, by the votes of the parliamentary majority of the government party was an outcome of the new nomination mechanism by which each president of the Bars without regard to the number of members registered to each Bar has one vote to determine three nominees for the election of one lawyer member by the GNAT. He was considered to be a protagonist of nationalist-conservative alliance, served as the provincial chairman of a pro-religious party earlier, and supported the 2010 constitutional referendum publicly. Another manipulation was made during the election process of Mr. Hicabi Dursun. First, after serving as as an expert at the Audit Court he competed for the election of the membership of the Audit Court in 2009. He failed to received the sufficient majority in the General Assembly of the Court and the elections were blocked and then the GNAT elected him to the Audit Court on the basis of Provisional Article 18 of the Law No. 5982 Concerning the Amendment of some Articles of the 1982 Constitution. According to this Article, the GNAT shall elect one member from among the members of the Audit Court and one member from among three nominees from the Bars within 30 days following the Law takes effect. Before a full year did not elapse after his election to the Audit Court he was nominated for the membership of the Constitutional Court. In fact he did not complete the age of 45 which is a requirement for the Constitutional Court’s membership. Although he received the votes less than two other nominees the parliamentary majority of the government party was elected him as the new member of the Constitutional Court in 2010.

        The members of the Supreme Board of Election are elected by the General Assemblies of the High Courts, which are considerably less prone to political influence in general due to a closed meritocratic system of selection. According to Mustafa ?entop, a deputy of the Justice and Development Party and a law professor, expressed the fact that some of the members of the Board should be elected from the outside of the High Judiciary.

        Mr. Hakk? Manav, the former member of the Court of Cassation, was elected to the Supreme Board of Election in December 2013. It is argued that Mr. Manav had close ties with the government party. The former Minister of Justice attempted to appoint him as undersecretary, however, the President of the Republic at that time did not approve this demand. Later, Mr. Erdo?an served as a marriage witness at the wedding of Mr. Manav’s daughter. Furthermore, the two daughters and and the son-in-law of Mr. Manav were assigned to Ankara after they served as public officers one month in different provinces.

        Scoring Criteria

        A 100 score is earned where: 1) there is an advertised competition and public vetting process, 2) candidates with the most merit and without conflicts of interest or other biases are appointed.

        A 50 score is earned where the public competition is usually advertised and the vetting process public, but exceptions exist. A 50 score is also earned where candidates with the most merit and without conflicts of interest or other biases are appointed but exceptions exist.

        A 0 score is earned where there's rarely or never a public competition, or appointees are rarely selected on merit or without conflicts of interest or other biases.

        Sources

        Interview with Ali R?za Ayd?n, Former Rapporteur of the Constitutional Court, Ankara, September 25, 2014.

        Erdo?an highlights judicial impartiality, while top judge focuses on judicial independence, Hürriyet Daily News, September 1, 2014, http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/erdogan-highlights-judicial-impartiality-while-top-judge-focuses-on-judicial-independence.aspx?pageID=238&nID=71158&NewsCatID=338

        "Ergun Özbudun'dan ilginç ç?k?? (Strange critique by Ergun Özbudun)," Bugün daily newspaper, February 8, 2013, http://gundem.bugun.com.tr/ergun-ozbudundan-ilginc-cikis-haberi/222022

        Ergun Özbudun, "Hükümet Sistemi Tart??malar? II (Debates on Government System II)," Zaman daly newspaper, April 9, 2013, http://www.zaman.com.tr/yorumhukumet-sistemi-tartismalari22075548.html

        Can Özçelik, "YSK üyeli?ine seçilen sürpriz isim kim" (Who was elected to the SBE as a surprise?), 29 November 2013, http://www.odatv.com/n.php?n=ysk-uyeligine-secilen-surpriz-isim-kim-2911131200

        Kemal Ba?lar, The Fifty Years of the Constitutional Court of Turkey (1962-2012), Law&Justice Review, 3 (4), June 2012, 13-58.

        "Yüksek Seçim Kurulu mu, Mahkeme mi? Mustafa ?entop ile Görü?me, (Is it the Supreme Board of Election of a court? Interview with Mustafa ?entop )," Aksiyon a weekly magazine, 20 September 2010, http://www.aksiyon.com.tr/aksiyon/haber-27640-280-yuksek-secim-kurulu-mu-yuksek-mahkeme-mi.html

        Gülay Göktürk, "Anayasa Mahkemesi üyelerinin seçimi tek adama b?rak?labilir mi? (Can the selection of the member of the Constitutional Cour be left to a single man?)," Bugün daily newspaper, 28 March 2010, http://www.hurfikirler.com/konular/yazdir.php?id=569

        Bülent Serim (former Secretary General of the Constitutional Court), "??te Anayasa Mahkemesinin Yeni Üyelerinin Bilinmeyenleri" (That is the mysteries of the New Members of the Constitutional Court), 17. October 2010, http://www.odatv.com/n.php?n=iste-anayasa-mahkemesinin-yeni-uyelerinin-bilinmeyenleri-1710101200

      • expand button!
        41
        Score
        YES
        In law, the independence of high-level appointees is guaranteed.More about indicator

        The Constitution (Article 138) addresses the independence of the Constitutional Court. The article states, "Judges shall be independent in the discharge of their duties; they shall give judgment in accordance with the Constitution, laws, and their personal convictions conforming with the law. No organ, authority, office or individual may give orders or instructions to courts or judges relating to the exercise of judicial power, send them circulars, or make recommendations or suggestions." Moreover, "Judges and public prosecutors shall not be dismissed, or unless they request, shall not be retired before the age prescribed by the Constitution; nor shall they be deprived of their salaries, allowances or other rights relating to their status, even as a result of the abolition of a court or a post" (Article 139).

        According to the Constitutional amendments of 2010 to Article 147, "the members of the Constitutional Court shall be elected for a term of twelve years. A member shall not be re-elected. The members of the Constitutional Court shall retire when they are over the age of sixty-five. The appointment of the members to another office whose term of office expires prior to their mandatory age of retirement and matters regarding their personnel status shall be laid down in law. Membership in the Constitutional Court shall terminate automatically if a member is convicted of an offence requiring his/her dismissal from the judicial profession, and by a decision of an absolute majority of the total number of members of the Constitutional Court if it is definitely established that he/she is unable to perform his/her duties on account of ill-health."

        In sum, Court members are elected for twelve years. Members cannot be re-elected for a second term. The President and the members cannot be removed from office and they cannot be retired unless they so request themselves or before sixty-five years of age. The term of office of the President and members ends only in cases laid down in the Constitution and in this present Law.

        According to Article 11 of Law No. 298, the Members of the Supreme Board of Elections shall take office for a period of six years. A member whose term of office is terminated may be re-elected and serve until they retire at the age of 65. The Chairman of the Supreme Board of Elections shall be regarded at leave from the organisation in which he is employed. However, the chairman shall continue to benefit from all salaries, allowances, as well as all salary raises, premiums and personnel rights as before. According to the Constitution (Article 79/1) "no appeal shall be made to any authority against the decisions of the Supreme Board of Election." Disciplinary actions related to the Boad members shall be conducted by the Court of Cassation or the Council of State according to the institutional origin of the member.

        Scoring Criteria

        A YES score is earned where: 1) appointees have the authority or mandate to review cases and issue decisions, 2) the law establishes security of tenure, and 3) removal or disciplinary actions are based on due process conducted by a peer panel or independent oversight body.

        A MODERATE score is earned where appointees have the authority or mandate to review cases and issue decisions, BUT one of the second two conditions mentioned in the YES criteria is not met.

        A NO score is earned where no such law exists.

        Sources

        1982 Constitution, Articles 138 and 147. http://global.tbmm.gov.tr/docs/constitution_en.pdf

        Law No. 6216 on The Establishment and Rules of Procedure of The Constitutional Court of Turkey, March 30, 2011, http://www.legislationline.org/download/action/download/id/3612/file/TurkeyLawestablishmentrulesprocdrconstcourt_2011.pdf

        Law No. 298 on Basic Prinicples of Elections and Electoral Registry, April 26, 1961, http://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/1.4.298.doc. For unoffical English translation see http://www.legislationline.org/documents/id/7010

      • expand button!
        42
        Score
        75
        In practice, to what extent is the independence of high-level appointees guaranteed?More about indicator

        In practice, appointees to the Board and the Constitutional Court are generally independent. In particular, their security of tenure and the due process established in law are fully respected. However, the government's recent stance against the Constitutional Court signals that the independence of judges, including the appointment processes in the future, is under threat. It is highly likely that further judicial reform may threathen the independence of the judiciary as a whole. Mr. M. Ali ?ahin, a former Minister of Justice and the deputy chair of the Justice and Development Party, recently stated that the composition of the Court has changed recently, and the tenor of its decisions across a whole range of issues, not just political finance, has changed.

        According to an analyst "the determination of Turkey’s Constitutional Court to fulfill its role in upholding the rule of law," and its recent decisions finding some provisions of the law unconstitutional, in addition to the strong inauguration speech of Ha?im K?l?ç, the Chairman of the Court, have been received unfavorably by government officials." As a result, the government is going to seek to circumvent and neuter the Court if it continues to maintain its independent stance. In this respect, the head of the Venice Commission issued a staunch warning to Turkey on January 14, 2014, insisting that the government must refrain from pushing through reforms that would endanger the independence of the judiciary.

        There has recently been a good deal of government-judiciary conflict regarding the judiciary's independence. For example, a judicial battlefield was opened at the elections of the members of the Higher Board of Judges and Prosecutors (HSYK). The government claimed that the HSYK has been seized by the parallel structures (a term for the Gulen led opposition). Th Government considers this an opportunity to purge the “parallel structure” from the Board. Under constitutional amendments passed in 2010, 16 of the 22 HSYK members are elected by the judiciary itself. Prime Minister Ahmet Davuto?lu also has said the government is ready to act if government loyalists aren't elected to key HSYK positions.

        Mr. Sabri Co?kun, a former vice-chair of the Supreme Board of Election, underlined the fact that impartiality of the members of the Board is equally important as the guarantees for the independence of its members are secured. However, the members may have had meetings with the politicians, bureaucrats and military circles before voting on an issue.

        Two recent decisions of the Board support the argument that the government influence the Board's some decisions. The Board decided that members of the Council of Ministers who would run for local elections in March 2014 do not have to resign. Mustafa ?entop, deputy leader of the Justice and Development Party, argued that ministers were in the same situation as lawmakers, therefore should not need to resign to run in elections as is already the case for lawmakers. However, minister candidates could mobilize more resources to their electoral district as having the executive power. Eventually only one out of three ministers elected as the mayor of metropolitan municipality. President Erdogan also did not resign from the Office of the Prime Minister during the campaign for the Presidential election based on the Supreme Electoral Council’s decision. However, considering the lenght of official campaign period and his never ending country wide electioneering which was started in early Spring this caused an unfair and uneven competition. He also did not resign from the Office of the Prime Minister after he was elected as the new President. Many constitutionalist argued that the Board's formal announcement of the new president, Erdogan’s parliamentary membership had legally come to an end automatically, terminating also his mandate as prime minister and making all decrees he would sign null and void.

        Scoring Criteria

        A 100 score is earned where all of the following conditions are met: 1) appointees review cases and issue decisions without fear or favor from other branches of government, and 2) appointees are granted security of tenure and 3) no appointees are removed, disciplined or transferred without due process by a peer panel or independent oversight body.

        A 50 score is earned where any of the following conditions apply: 1) appointees generally operate without fear or favor from other branches of government but exceptions exist, or 2) some but not all appointees are granted security of tenure, or 3) appointees are occasionally removed, disciplined or transferred without due process by a peer panel or independent oversight body.

        A 0 score is earned where at least one of the following conditions apply: 1) appointees operate with fear or favor from other branches of government, or 2) are not granted security of tenure, or 3) are usually removed, disciplined or transferred without observing due process by a peer panel or independent oversight body.

        Sources

        Interview with Ali R?za Ayd?n, Former Rapporteur of the Constitutional Court, Ankara, September 25, 2014.

        Interview with Erol Tuncer, Chairman, TESAV (Foundation for Economic and Social Research of Turkey), Ankara, 8 August 2014.

        Venice Commission head warns Turkey about ‘hasty’ judicial bill," Hürriyet Daily News, January 14, 2014, http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/venice-commission-head-warns-turkey-about-hasty-judicial-bill.aspx?pageID=238&nid=61046

        Hendrik Müller, Turkey’s Constitutional Court: The Last Resort of Hope for the Rule of Law? The Turkey Analyst, April 30, 2014, http://www.turkeyanalyst.org/publications/turkey-analyst-articles/item/105-turkey%E2%80%99s-constitutional-court-the-last-resort-of-hope-for-the-rule-of-law

        "Another clash between the Turkish government and judiciary," April 26, 2014, http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/another-clash-between-the-turkish-government-and-judiciary.aspx?PageID=238&NID=65574&NewsCatID=409

        Kadri Gürsel, "AKP pursues scorched-earth tactics against Gulenists," September 4, 2014, http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/09/turkey-akp-gulen-rift-erdogan-judiciary.html#

        "Turkey’s top judge says judiciary is not ‘a castle to conquer," Hürriyet Daily Newspaper, October 5, 2014, http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/turkeys-top-judge-says-judiciary-is-not-a-castle-to-conquer.aspx?pageID=238&nid=71200

        "Gov't continues to wage war on independent judiciary," Todays Zaman, September 3, 2014, http://www.todayszaman.com/mobile_detailHeadline.action?newsId=360679

        "Anayasa Mahkemesinin Yap?s? De?i?ti (Structure of the Constitutional Court has changed)," Ak?am daily newspaper, October 5, 2014, http://www.aksam.com.tr/siyaset/anayasa-mahkemesinin-yapisi-degisti/haber-343592

        "Yüksek Seçim Kurulu mu, Mahkeme mi? (Is it the Supreme Board of Election of a court? An Interview with Sabri Co?kun)," Aksiyon weekly magazine, September 20, 2010, http://www.aksiyon.com.tr/aksiyon/haber-27640-280-yuksek-secim-kurulu-mu-yuksek-mahkeme-mi.html

        Ministers won’t have to quit to run in local elections, Hürriyet daily news, 29 November 2013, http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/ministers-wont-have-to-quit-to-run-in-local-elections.aspx?pageID=238&nID=58774&NewsCatID=338

        Cengiz Çandar, Is Erdogan's refusal to resign as PM unconstitutional? Al Monitor, 20 August 2014, http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/08/turkey-legal-chaos-president-elected-erdogan-candar.html#ixzz3I8H9W9c3

        Supreme Board of Election, Decision 3237, 12 July 2014, http://www.ysk.gov.tr/ysk/content/conn/YSKUCM/path/Contribution%20Folders/Kararlar/2014-3237.pdf

      • expand button!
        43
        Score
        --
        Open Question: How does decision-making work in the oversight authority?More about indicator

        The Court consists of seventeen members. The Court conducts audits on the political finance documents submitted by political parties; it may request assistance from the Court of Accounts, it may ask the parties to document information pertaining to their final accounts, it may carry out investigations at the headquarters and local organisations of the parties. The Court secures assistance from the Court of Accounts in order to review or have reviewed lawfulness of property acquisitions by the political parties and their revenues and expenditures. The reports prepared by the Court of Accounts concerning the preliminary examination and examination on merits are approved by the Court for final decision by an absolute majority of the members. In case of equal division of votes, the President will have the casting vote. The examination on final accounts of the political parties is conducted according to the provisions of the Law Nos. 2820 and 6216 and the Court can apply some sanctions directly.

        Reports which have been arranged regarding examinations carried out are notified to the concerned political party and it is asked to submit its defense within two months at the latest. The Court takes into account opinions of the political parties on reports prepared during financial examinations. Copies of the Court's decisions concerning the financial audit are sent to the political party concerned, the Court of Accounts, and the Chief Public Prosecutor of the Court of Cassation, who will place it in the records file of the party concerned. The decisions concerning the financial audit are published in the Official Gazette.

        The General Assembly and Chambers render decisions by an absolute majority of participants. In case of equal division of votes, the President will have the casting vote. A two-thirds majority is sought for decisions on annulment of Constitutional amendments, dissolution of political parties or deprivation of political parties of state aid.

        From time to time politicization of the Constitutional Court has been alleged The recent clash between the Chairman of the Court and the government party over the anti-government nature of some court decisions was interpreted as another politicization without any substance. However, the Constitutional Court can be regarded as an independent monitoring body which has, over the years, brought to light a number of infringements of party financing regulations.

        The Supreme Board of Election consists of 11 members (all mebers of the higher courts) that shall review the submitted campaign accounts of the presidential candidates on document with regard to compliance only. The Board makes decisions by an absolute majority of participants. In case of equal division of votes, the President will have the deciding vote. Despite a previous OSCE/ODIHR recommendation, meetings of electoral boards are closed to the public and not all regulations and decisions are posted on the SBE website or are otherwise publically available in the Official Gazette. It is expected that the SBE shall use the applicable sanctions stated above to the presidential candidates when there is a violation. However, the SBE has not publicized its review on the presidential candidates' campaign accounts at time this research was completed.

        Scoring Criteria

        Please describe: 1) the composition of the decision-making body within the oversight authority, 2) the type of decisions it's allowed to make and makes in practice, and 3) in which cases majority is required. If there have been well substantiated complaints about the decision-making process being ineffective or politicized please explain.

        Sources

        Law No. 6216 on The Establishment and Rules of Procedure of The Constitutional Court of Turkey, March 30, 2011, http://www.legislationline.org/download/action/download/id/3612/file/TurkeyLawestablishmentrulesprocdrconstcourt_2011.pdf

        Anayasa Mahkemesi ?çtüzü?ü (in Turkish), Official Gazette, July 12, 2012 No : 28351, http://www.anayasa.gov.tr/files/pdf/ictuzuk_son.pdf

        Interview with Ali R?za Ayd?n, Former Rapporteur of the Constitutional Court, Ankara, September 25, 2014. Interview with Nahit Yüksel, Senior Expert, Directorate of Budget Control, Ministry of Finance, Ankara, August 8, 2014.

        OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights Limited Election Observation Mission Republic of Turkey Presidential Election, 10 August 2014 , Interim Report, 9-28 July 2014, 31 July 2014, http://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/turkey/122141?download=true

        GRECO Third Round Evaluation Report on Turkey on Transparency of Party Funding, Greco Eval III Rep (2009) 5E Theme II, Strasbourg, 26 March 2010, http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/greco/evaluations/round3/GrecoEval3(2009)5TurkeyTwo_EN.pdf

      • expand button!
        44
        Score
        75
        In practice, to what extent does the authority have sufficient capacity to monitor political finance regulations?More about indicator

        The Constitutional Court has a budget worth 39,069,000 Turkish Lira (USD 17,507,562) in 2014, and its personnel has increased in number. There are four chief rapporteurs and 63 rapporteurs. Some of them are experts in auditing. In addition, the Court is provided staff by the Audit Court, if needed. Its staff is mainly specialized in auditing in a strict sense and the financial scrutiny exercised by the Court appears to satisfy accountancy standards. The number of rapporteurs increased recently and they are assisted by the Directorate of Decisions of the Secretariat of the Constitutional Court. However, there is no specially allocated budget for the control of political finances. The Court can get assistance from the Audit Court when and if necessary. The Court does review all the many files received (big party reports may include tens of files, while small parties generally submit some pages varying between 5 to 15, which includes the invoices and receipts for their income and expenditures), but doing so can take up to a few years.

        For presidential candidates, the Supreme Board of Elections is entitled to review their campaign accounts. In 2014, the SBE has a budget worth a total of 808.4 million Turkish Liras (USD 362.08 million). Sources argue that the current capacity of the Board may not be sufficient for effective review of collected reports. Currently the Board has about two thousand employees, mainly clerical staff, country wide. However, the Law No. 6271 enables the Board to receive assistance from the Audit Court and it is expected that it will rely mainly on the Audit Court's staff in this review process. The SBE, even with help from the Court of Audit, can conduct only superficial compliance reviews of the accounts of presidential candidates.

        The experts underlined the fact that The Board’s new mission creates a two-tiered system. On the one hand the Court examines the parties’ annual accounts, and on the other the Board deals with the presidential candidates’ campaign accounts.

        Ideally, the Board would collect the information and documents and forward it to the Court for uniformity of the system of supervision on political funding in Turkey. If this is a signal of testing the Board as a new destination for the supervision of party accounts including campaign finance, the Board needs a structural reform urgently.

        Scoring Criteria

        A 100 score is earned where: 1) the authority has sufficient budget to monitor all incoming reports, and 2) it has sufficient staff to review all incoming reports.

        A 50 score is earned where: 1) the authority has insufficient budget to monitor all incoming reports, or 2) its staff can only review half of all incoming reports.

        A 0 score is earned where: 1) the authority can't fulfill most of its essential functions due to budget constraints, or 2) its staff only has the capacity to review 25% or less of all incoming reports.

        Sources

        Interview with Ali R?za Ayd?n, Former Rapporteur of the Constitutional Court, Ankara, September 25, 2014. Interview with Nahit Yüksel, Senior Expert, Directorate of Budget Control, Ministry of Finance, Ankara, August 8, 2014.

        Ömer Faruk Gençkaya, Cumhurba?kan? Seçim Kampanyas?n?n Finansman?: Adiliyet, ?effafl?k ve Hesap Verebilirlik (Campaign Finance of Presidential Election: Fairness, Transparency and Accountability)," Democracy Barometer Analyis Report 1, ?stanbul, June 2014. https://www.dropbox.com/s/p6moyw4ro1wr5qf/CUMHURBA%C5%9EKANI%20SE%C3%87%C4%B0M%20KAMPANYASININ%20F%C4%B0NANSMANI%20-%20%C3%96mer%20Faruk%20Gen%C3%A7kaya.pdf

        "YSK Ba?kan?'ndan önemli aç?klamalar (Important messages from the Chairman of the Supreme Board of Election)," Hürriyet, daily newspaper, March 25, 2014, http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/gundem/26079895.asp

      • expand button!
        45
        Score
        0
        In practice, to what extent does the authority conduct investigations or audits when necessary?More about indicator

        The Court may conduct investigations and inquiries at the headquarters and local organisations of the parties – either directly or by a delegated member from among its members, or by the most senior judicial or administrative judge of the locality concerned, and possibly with the assistance of a sworn expert. However, there are no available statistics about such investigations and audits aside from the regular review -audit- on documents submitted by the relevant parties. The Court's reports may state such on site investigations and audits rarely.

        As expressed earlier, the Court did not publicize the financial compliance reviews for the period 2011-2014 yet. Therefore, there is no official information if the Court carried out any investigative audit for this period. For the previous periods, e.g. during the audit of Revolutionary Labour Party's 2007 accounts, the Court decided that failure in sending the party documents requested by the Court can be considered to obscure the investigation and audits in accordance with Article 75 of Law No. 2820 and this was reported to the Prosecutor's Office. In general, the Court’s reports did not specifically mention any information about the investigative audits.

        According to the informal information provided by the experts/rapporteurs the authority performs deeper investigations rarely or never. It is said that even for the cases of violations the authority demands documentation from the relevant political party and its officers and prepares reports on paper. In other words, the authority refers to the Prosecutor's Office for "deeper" criminal investigation upon its preliminary findings.

        The Supreme Board of Elections is not entitled to conduct investigation and audit besides regular compliance review on the presidential candidates' campaign accounts.


        Peer Reviewer comment: Agree. Political parties’ financial auditing is conducted by the Constitutional Court every year. There is no specific investigation or auditing conducted for the election campaigns. The annual auditing of political parties’ revenues and expenditures does not have any practical effect, as the percentage of unregistered transactions is high in the total volume.

        Scoring Criteria

        A 100 score is earned where the authority conducted at least three investigations or audits during the most recent electoral campaign.

        A 50 score is earned where the authority conducted at least one investigation or audit during the most recent electoral campaign.

        A 0 score is earned where the authority didn't conduct any investigation or audit during the most recent electoral campaign.

        Sources

        Interview with Nahit Yüksel, Senior Expert, Directorate of Budget Control, Ministry of Finance, Ankara, August 8, 2014. Interview with Ali R?za Ayd?n, Former Rapporteur of the Constitutional Court, Ankara, September 25, 2014.

        The Constitutional Court Decision on the 2007 Final Accounts of the Revolutionary Labour Party, Official Gazette, June 4, 2014, http://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2014/07/20140702-18.pdf

        Reviewer sources: Interview with Mustafa Özyürek, Former Chairman of the Union of Chambers of Certified Public Accountants and Sworn-in Certified Public Accountants of Turkey, Former Accountant of Republican People’s Party, Former MP, Ankara, 19 November 2014.

        Interview with Tarhan Erdem, Chairman of the Executive Board of KONDA Survey Company, Phone Interview, 18 November 2014.

      • expand button!
        46
        Score
        0
        In practice, to what extent does the authority publish the results of investigations or audits?More about indicator

        The Court's investigative audits are not published separately and when such audits are conducted, they may be added to the compliance (final) report. Any findings from investigative audits are included in the Court's Final Report. To date, the Court has completed the review of the 2009 and/or 2010 party accounts only in the past year, and published the results of those reviews recently.

        The Supreme Board of Elections is not entitled by the Law No. 6217 to conduct investigation and audit besides regular compliance review on the presidential candidates' campaign accounts.

        Scoring Criteria

        A 100 score is earned where the authority publishes reports of all its investigations or audits a month or less after their conclusion.

        A 50 score is earned where reports are available to the public more than a month after the conclusion of the investigation or audit.

        A 0 score is earned where reports are not available to the public or they become available after six months or more after conclusion of the investigation or audit. A 0 score is also earned where only summaries of the reports are publicly available.

        Sources

        Interview with Nahit Yüksel, Senior Expert, Directorate of Budget Control, Ministry of Finance, Ankara, August 8, 2014.

        Interview with Ali R?za Ayd?n, Former Rapporteur of the Constitutional Court, Ankara, September 25, 2014.

        GRECO Third Round Evaluation Report on Turkey on Transparency of Party Funding, Greco Eval III Rep (2009) 5E Theme II, Strasbourg, 26 March 2010, http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/greco/evaluations/round3/GrecoEval3(2009)5TurkeyTwo_EN.pdf

    • expand button!
      Enforcement Capabilities
      More about category
      • expand button!
        47
        Score
        YES
        In law, there are sanctions in response to political finance violations.More about indicator

        The Constitution (Article 69/2 and 10) and the Law No. 2820 define the prohibitions related to the violations of political finance regulations (Articles 66-72, 74-75, 79/c, 102) and provide for a range of criminal, administrative and civil sanctions (Article 76, 101/c, 104, 111, 113 and 116) to be imposed on political parties, party officials/party candidates or other persons for violations of party financing regulations.

        According to the Law No. 2820, there are four types of administrative sanctions: a) Decision of warning by the Constitutional Court (Article 104); b) Confiscation by the State Treasury or liquidation of property (Article 76) the whole amount of donations received, goods or proceeds acquired by a party in violation of the financing provisions of the Law No. 2820; donations exceeding the legal threshold, loans or debts provided to political parties in violation of Article 67, income received from undocumented sources in violation of Article 69, and the amount of undocumented expenses; liquidation of immovable properties except the ones necessary for their residential needs (Article 77); c) Deprivation of political parties from State funding (Article 102) for failure in providing the documents reuested by the Office of Chief Public Prosecutor;
        d) Closure of a party (Article 101) in violation to Article 69/2, 10 of the Constitution and Artcicles 67 and 79 of the Law No. 2820 regulating the bans of commercial activity and foreign donations.

        Criminal sanctions to be imposed by the competent courts apply to natural persons and range from a fine to imprisonment for up to three years (Articles 111, 113 and 116). A ban from engaging in political activities constitutes a second category of sanctions for the relevant individuals (Article 116).

        The Law No. 298 also defines some prohibitions concerning the violations of campaign activities (indirect financing) related to broadcasting (Article 55A, 55B), acts forbidden during the election campaigns related to public civil servant, public officials, municipal employees, associations operating for public benefit (Articles 62 and 63), restrictions on ceremonies (Article 64) and restrictions on the Prime Minister and Ministers (Article 65) and officers prohibited from participating in campaign tours (Article 66).

        Sanctions include administrative sanctions such as stopping broadcasting for certain number of days (3-15 days) up to 12 times in case of violation of campaign broadcasting rules (Article 149/A) and criminal sanctions (up to three years in jail) for the promise of benefits in exchange for votes (Article 152), and failure of the Prime Minister and Ministers to observe prohibitions (Article 155). For people who have committed electioneering offences for which no penalty has been specifically determined by the present law, the first paragraph of Article 32 of the Law No. 5326 on Misdemeanor (light fine) shall be applicable. Finally, Article 154 on breaches of provisions concerning candidatures and people who are banned from electioneering activities, prohibit all public officials, civilian and military including municipal employees, to conduct electioneering activities or otherwise encourage or influence others for or against candidates (whether party member or independent) during the official campaign period, then such people shall be punishable by prison terms from three months to one year and by fines from 2,500 to 10,000 Turkish Liras (USD 1,120 to USD 4,481).

        Law No. 6271 (Article 14/6) states that the amount of the donations and aids collected by the presidential candidates above the upper limit and the nonexpendable funds shall be registered as a revenue with the State Treasury.

        Scoring Criteria

        A YES score is earned where: 1) the law clearly defines violations of political finance laws, and 2) there are clearly defined sanctions for specific violations.

        A MODERATE score is earned where violations are clearly defined but sanctions for specific violations are not.

        A NO score is earned where no such law exists.

        Sources

        1982 Constitution Article 69/2 and 10 http://global.tbmm.gov.tr/docs/constitution_en.pdf

        Law No. 2820 on Political Parties, April 22, 1983, Articles 66-72, 74-76, 79/c, 101/c, 102, 104, 111, 113 and 116, http://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/1.5.2820.pdf

        Law No. 298 on Basic Principles of Elections and Electoral Registry, April 26, 1961, Articles 55/A, 55B, 62-66, 149/A, 152, 154 and 156, www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/1.4.298.doc (Turkish), http://www.legislationline.org/documents/id/7010 (Unofficial English Translation).

        Law No. 5326 on Misdemeanor, March 31, 2005, Article 32, http://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/1.5.5326.pdf

        Law No. 6271 on Presidential Election, January 26, 2012, Article 14, http://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/1.5.6271.pdf

      • expand button!
        48
        Score
        YES
        In law, the oversight authority has the power to impose sanctions.More about indicator

        The oversight authorities, the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Board of elections shall impose the administrative sanctions by means of the Accounting Office of the State Treasury (confiscation and fines), and the criminal sanctions by the Office of Public Prosecutor. As expressed in Q 43 the Court directly decides on the administrative sanctions. However, the Court and the Board report the criminal violations to the Office of the Chief Public Prosecutor. Administrative fines shall be collected by the Collection Department assigned by the Ministry of Finance in accordance with the Law No. 6183 on the Collection Procedure of Public Receivables.

        Scoring Criteria

        A YES score is earned where: 1) the oversight authority has the power to impose sanctions, and 2) it can directly prosecute violators before the courts or is independent to send cases to public prosecution.

        A MODERATE score is earned where the oversight authority has the power to impose sanctions, but it can't directly prosecute violators before the courts or is not independent to send cases to public prosecution.

        A NO score is earned where no such law exists.

        Sources

        Law No. 2820 on Political Parties, April 22, 1983, Articles , 101/c, , 104, 111, 113 and 116, http://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/1.5.2820.pdf

        Law No. 6183 on the Collection Procedure of Public Receivables, July 28, 1953, http://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/1.3.6183.pdf

      • expand button!
        49
        Score
        50
        In practice, to what extent do offenders comply with sanctions imposed?More about indicator

        There is no data available whether the confiscated party money and/or immovables were collected properly or not. However, the experts stated that the administrative fines are collected by the relevant agencies of the Ministry of Finance consistently. More importantly, neither experts nor the authorities of the Ministry of Justice were able to provide concrete information about the criminal sanctions imposed in the area of party financing, despite several criminal notifications made by the Constitutional Court.

        The court cases relevant to the financial violations of the provisions of the Law No. 2820 and Law No. 298 rarely appear in newspapers. In one of the cases, the former accountant member of the Republican People's Party and the accounting officer were sentenced to imprisonment in 2010. However, this verdict was subject to suspension of punishments.

        The current regime of immunities in Turkey seriously hampers the enforcement of political financing regulations. It was pointed out that these regulations mainly address high-ranking party officials who are – at least in larger parties – mostly MPs and therefore immune from prosecution under Article 83 of the Constitution.

        As an example, there was the "Lost Trillion" (Kayip Trilyon) Case against the former Welfare Party and the unlawful transactions in the Republican People's Party's annual accounts of 1998, 2004, 2005 and 2006 which were found by the Constitutional Court. Due to the parliamentary immunities the persons in charge of financial affairs of these political parties were not tried or they paid the penalty later.

        Scoring Criteria

        A 100 score is earned where: 1) offenders comply with the sanctions imposed without exception, and 2) they are not repeat offenders.

        A 50 score is earned where: 1) offenders usually comply with the sanctions imposed but exceptions exist, or 2) most are not repeat offenders but some exceptions exist.

        A 0 score is earned where: 1) offenders rarely comply with the sanctions imposed, or 2) most are repeat offenders.

        Sources

        Interview with Nahit Yüksel, Senior Expert, Directorate of Budget Control, Ministry of Finance, Ankara, August 8, 2014. Interview with Ali R?za Ayd?n, Former Rapporteur of the Constitutional Court, Ankara, September 25, 2014.

        "CHP 'nin hesaplar?nda usulsüzlük davas?nda karar (Verdict on irregularity in the Republican People's party accounts)," Hürriyet daily newspaper, 5 April 2010, http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/gundem/14326795.asp

      • expand button!
        50
        Score
        --
        Open Question: How strong is enforcement, and what impedes more effective enforcement?More about indicator

        First of all there is no specific law regulating campaign finance at local and parliamentary elections. The scope of the Presidential Election Law is limited.

        Second, transparency in political funding in general is a major issue. Reporting of in-kind donations, third party contributions, and the accounts of the entities such as women and youth branches, foundations and association related to the party/candidates is partial or non-existent. Indirect state aid including free air time and impartiality of broadcasting by private channels during the campaign period posed critical questions by means of the official reports, including the Supreme Board of Radio and Television and the OSCE/ODIHR.

        Third, the current system of supervision arrangements lacks effectiveness, in large part due to a dearth of coordination between the relevant authorities, especially between the Court and the law enforcement agencies. The Constitutional Court, the Audit Court (technically) and the Supreme Board of Elections (for presidential candidates) constitute a tripartite structure for the supervision (review) of political funding in Turkey. In addition, the Office of the Chief Public Prosecutor exercised a limited capacity for monitoring.

        Fourth, universal standard format for incomes and expenditures and accountancy systems for political parties has been improved recently by the efforts of the Court. The Board also issued simple but uniform lists for the registration of the presidential candidates’ revenues and expenditures. However, the campaign finance of candidates at local and parliamentary elections is not regulated yet and constitutes the major loophole in Turkey.

        Moreover, there is a considerable time lag in terms of the supervision of political parties’ annual accounts. The most recent final reports on political parties’ accounts are from the fiscal year of 2011 in general and only three small parties’ accounts for 2012 have to date been completed. The Constitutional Court most recently publicized the reports of the three big parties’ financial accounts for the year 2009. This prevents an effective public scrutiny which should take place soon after the elections ideally.

        Furthermore, the sanctions for violation of financial provisions are broad and more than satisfactory yet the effectiveness of the sanctions is the major question due to the lack of information available about the enforcement of these sanctions. The Court and the Board initiate their enforcement by means of the Ministry of Finance and the Office of Public Prosecutor which may need an effective coordination, too.

        In order to minimize the above mentioned issues the political finance reform can take the following steps. Methodologically a reform needs an integrated and holistic approach rather than partial amendments and changes to the existing laws. Following the adoption of the Law No. 6217 a separate campaign finance regulation for local and parliamentary elections is needed. Proper reporting procedure for in kind and cash donations needs to be improved. Third party contributions and activities should be regulated urgently. Free air time and private channels’ broadcasting during the campaign period should be regulated in a fair and impartial manner. An independent mechanism composed of the representatives of the relevant non-governmental organizations, press, and academics as well as political parties can be set up to monitor and report irregularities in political finance process. The measures –institutional, procedural or other- to be taken in order to speed up the supervision period by the relevant authorities are determined and enforced. The Ministry of Justice should provide the detailed results of the court processes about the cases relevant to violation of financial provisions. Accordingly effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions for infringements of regulations concerning election campaign funding of political parties and candidates can be developed.

        Scoring Criteria

        Please provide a general explanation of the effectiveness of enforcement, describing: 1) any conditions that may prevent effective enforcement, and 2) explain what are the most urgent areas of reform in the country's political finance system.

        Sources

        Interview with Nahit Yüksel, Senior Expert, General Directorate of Budget and Fiscal Control, Ministry of Finance, Ankara, August 8, 2014. Interview with Erol Tuncer, Chairman, TESAV (Foundation for Economic and Social Research of Turkey), Ankara, August 8, 2014. Interview with Oya Çetinkaya, Chairman, ?effafl?k Derne?i (TI Turkey Chapter), ?stanbul, August 14, 2014. Interview with Bülent Tarhan, Senior Inspector/Consultant, Prime Ministry Inspection Board/TEPAV, Ankara, September 23, 2014. Interview with ?ehriban O?han, journalist, Hürriyet daily newspaper, ?stanbul, September 23, 2014. Interview with Bekir A??rd?r, General Director of KONDA Survey Company, ?stanbul, September 23, 2014. Interview with Ali R?za Ayd?n, Former Rapporteur of the Constitutional Court, Ankara, September 25, 2014.

        GRECO Third Round Evaluation Report on Turkey on Transparency of Party Funding, Greco Eval III Rep (2009) 5E Theme II, Strasbourg, 26 March 2010, http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/greco/evaluations/round3/GrecoEval3(2009)5TurkeyTwo_EN.pdf

        Third Evaluation Round Compliance Report I on Turkey, “Incriminations (ETS 173 and 191, GPC 2)” and “Transparency of Party Funding, Adopted by GRECO at its 54th Plenary Meeting, Strasbourg, 20-23 March 2012, http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/greco/evaluations/round3/GrecoRC3(2012)4TurkeyEN.pdf

The Grand National Assembly of Turkey (TGNA) is a unicameral parliament which is composed of 550 deputies who are elected by popular vote every four years. Voters vote for a party list of deputies without being able to choose specific individual candidates from the lists; i.e., they can only vote in block for a single party list as determined by the central party organs. Therefore, the electoral system can be characterized as a closed-list proportional representation system. The allocation of seats is calculated according to the D’Hondt method. A 10 percent nationwide threshold is practiced in elections. Those political parties failing to receive at least 10% of the valid votes throughout the country in general elections cannot be represented in the parliament. However, this threshold does not apply to independent candidates.

Electoral campaigns are basically funded by political parties yet candidates also make a budget for their individual expenses relative to their own wealth and personal networks.

The President of the Republic is the Head of the State, elected for five years and no more than two terms. The Head of the State was elected by a popular vote for the first time on August 10, 2014. According to the Law No. 6271 on Presidential Elections presidential candidates shall have only donations and aids from natural persons who are Turkish citizens. However, the Supreme Board of Elections issued a circular enabling the political parties to organize campaigns for the candidates, which is not regulated by the law. Thus, campaigns were funded by the donations to the candidates and by political parties. Although the candidates were not eligible to receive state funding, except for free air time, the presidential campaigns were also funded indirectly by the state aid through the three political parties which received annual state aid.

The Council of Ministers (Cabinet) consists of the Prime Minister designated by the President of the Republic from among members of the TGNA, and ministers nominated by the Prime Minister and appointed by the President. Members of the Council of Ministers (Cabinet) are responsible for the execution of general policies. The Prime Minister has legal and political responsibility for the activities of the Council of Ministers as a whole. Although the President is given extensive powers, the current constitutional system is a prime-ministerial model rather than a presidential one.

Turkey is a unitary and centralized state with relatively decentralized local administrations. The multi-party system has evolved gradually since 1946 and faced three military interventions in 1960, 1971 and 1980. The 1982 Constitution is based on the rationalization of parliament and strengthening of the executive.

Elections and referenda shall be held under the direction and supervision of the judiciary, in accordance with the principles of free, equal, secret and direct voting, universal suffrage, and public counting of the votes. The most recent elections include: Presidential election on 10 August 2014 Local administration elections on 30 March 2014 Parliamentary elections on 12 June 2011