Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T01:53:48.109Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Democracy and the Politics of Parliamentary Immunity in Turkey

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 July 2015

Gürcan Koçan  and
Simon Wigley
Gürcan Koçan
Affiliation:
Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, İstanbul Technical University
Simon Wigley
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, Bilkent University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In Turkey there is currently a widespread public desire to narrow the extent to which parliamentarians are immune from the law. That desire is largely motivated by the perception that political corruption is widespread and that parliamentary immunity only serves to obstruct the fight against it. As a result, a number of political parties have based their electoral platforms on the promise to limit the scope of parliamentary immunity once in office. As of yet, none have carried through their promise and this has only served to reinforce the public view that parliamentarians see their immunity as a personal privilege. Irrespective of the merits of that charge, there is a genuine concern that confronts Turkish deputies, which means that they will be less likely to limit the immunity once elected. Their concern is that current law does not adequately protect civil and political liberties and that the judiciary is not yet sufficiently evenhanded in its treatment of political cases. In effect, the fight against political corruption has been frustrated in part because of the risk to free speech that exposure to the law might entail.

Type
Articles
Information
New Perspectives on Turkey , Volume 33 , Fall 2005 , pp. 121 - 143
Copyright
Copyright © New Perspectives on Turkey 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anatolian News Agency, October 1, 2003.Google Scholar
An-Na'im, Abdullah Ahmed. Towards an Islamic Reformation: Civil Liberties, Human Rights and International Law. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1996.Google Scholar
Crespo Allen, M.Parliamentary Immunity in the Member States of the European Union and the European Parliament. Brussels: European Parliament, ECPRD, 1999.Google Scholar
Çarkoğlu, Ali, and Toprak, Binnaz. Türkiye'de Din, Toplum ve Siyaset. İstanbul: TESEV Yayınları, 2000.Google Scholar
Dünya, October 11, 2004.Google Scholar
Elster, Jon. Alchemies of the Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.Google Scholar
Elster, Jon. “Reason, Interest and Passion in the East European Transitions.” Social Science Information/ Sur Les Sciences Sociales 38, no. 4 (1999): 499–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elton, C. R.The Tudor Constitution. 2 ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982.Google Scholar
European Commission. Regular Report on Turkey's Progress towards Accession, 2003. Brussels: European Commission, 2003.Google Scholar
European Commission. Regular Report on Turkey's Progress towards Accession, 2004. Brussels: European Commission, 2004.Google Scholar
European Commission. Turkey: 2005 Progress Report. Brussels: European Commission, 2005.Google Scholar
European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). Cose of Pakdemirli vs. Turkey: application no: 35839/97, February 22, 2005.Google Scholar
European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). Case of Refah Partisi (Welfare Party) and Others vs. Turkey Judgment, Grand Chamber. Applications nos. 41340/98, 41342/98, 41343/98 and 41344/98, February 13, 2003.Google Scholar
European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). Sadak and Others vs. Turkey (No. 1): Applications nos. 29900/96, 29901 /96, 29902/96 and 29903/96, July 17, 2001.Google Scholar
Ferejohn, John, and Pasquino, Pasquino. “Rule of Democracy and Rule of Law.” In Democracy and the Rule of Law, edited by Maravall, Jose Maria and Przeworski, Adam, 242–60. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feyzioğlu, Metin. “Yasama Dokunulmazlığı Üzerine Düşünceler.” In Prof. Dr. Çetin Özek Armağanı, edited by Bayraktar, Köksal, İlkiz, Fikret, Oral, Mehmet, Kocasakal, Ümit, Aksoy, E. Eylem and Memiş, Pınar, 397–428. İstanbul: Galatasaray Üniversitesi Yayını, 2004.Google Scholar
Ginsburg, Tom. Judicial Review in New Democracies: Constitutional Courts in Asian Cases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heper, Metin. The State Tradition in Turkey. Hull: The Eothen Press, 1985.Google Scholar
Heper, Metin. “The Strong State as a Problem for the Consolidation of Democracy: Turkey and Germany Compared.” Comparative Political Studies 25, no. 2 (1992): 169–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirschl, Ran. “Constitutional Courts vs. Religious Fundamentalism: Three Middle Eastern Tales.” Texas Law Review 82, no. 7 (2004): 1819–60.Google Scholar
Hirschl, Ran. Towards Juristocracy: The Origins and Consequences of the New Constitutionalism. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2004.Google Scholar
İnalcık, Halil. “The Nature of Traditional Society.” In Political Modernization in Japan and Turkey, edited by Ward, Robert E. and Rustow, Dankwart A., 42–63. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
İnalcık, Halil. Osmanlı İmparatorluğu: Toplum ve Ekonomi, İstanbul: Eren, 1993.Google Scholar
Kalaycıoğlu, Ersin. “Elections and Party Preferences in Turkey: Changes and Continuities in the 1990s.” Comparative Political Studies 27, no. 3 (1994): 402–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koğacıoğlu, Dicle. “Progress, Unity, and Democracy: Dissolving Political Parties in Turkey.” Law and Society Review 38, no. 3 (2004): 433–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kurtuluş, Ercis. 2004. Country Reports on Political Corruption and Party Financing — Turkey. In, Transparency International, www.transparency.org.Google Scholar
Locke, John. The Second Treatise of Government. Edited by David Wootton, John Locke: The Political Writings. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing, 2003.Google Scholar
Magee, Simon. Rules on Parliamentary Immunity in the European Parliament and the Member States of the European Union. Brussels: European Parliament, ECPRD, 2001.Google Scholar
Maravall, Jose Maria. “The Rule of Law as a Political Weapon.” In Democracy and the Rule of Law, edited by Maravall, Jose Maria and Przeworski, Adam, 261–301. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mardin, Şerif. “Center-Periphery Relations: A Key to Turkish Politics?” In Political Participation in Turkey: Historical Background and Present Problems, edited by Akarlı, Engin Deniz and Ben-Dor, Gabriel, 7–32. İstanbul: Boğaziçi University Publications, 1975.Google Scholar
Mardin, Şerif. “Ideology and Religion in the Turkish Revolution.” International Journal of Middle East Studies 2, no. 3 (1971): 197–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mardin, Şerif. “Power, Civil Society and Culture in the Ottoman Empire.” Comparative Studies in Society and History 11, no. 3 (1969): 258–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mardin, Şerif. “Tabii Hukuk, Batı Toplumu ve Bizler.” Hukuk Felsefesi ve Sosyolojisi Arkivi, no. 9 (2003): 13–18.Google Scholar
May, Thomas Erskine. Parliamentary Practice: The Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament. Edited by SirLimon, D. and Mackay, W. R.. London: Butterworths, 1997.Google Scholar
Mill, John Stuart. “On Liberty.” In John Stuart Mill: On Liberty and Other Essays, edited by Cray, John, 6–128. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991.Google Scholar
Milliyet, November 28, 1996.Google Scholar
Milliyet, November 5, 2002.Google Scholar
Milliyet, December 12, 2003.Google Scholar
Myttenaere, Robert. The Immunities of Members of Parliament. Geneva: Inter-Parliamentary Union, 1998.Google Scholar
Neale, John. E. “The Commons' Privilege of Free Speech in Parliament.” In Tudor Studies, edited by Seton-Watson, Robert William, 257–86. London: Longmans Green, 1924.Google Scholar
OECD/EU. 2004. Turkey: Anti-Corruption and Integrity Framework Assessment. In, SIGMA, http://www.sigmaweb.org/.Google Scholar
Örücü, Esin. “Turkey: Change under Pressure.” In Studies in Legal Systems: Mixed and Mixing, edited by Örücü, Esin, Attwooll, Elspeth and Coyle, Sean, 89–111. Boston: Kluwer Law International, 1996.Google Scholar
Özbudun, Ergun. “Constitutional Debates on Parliamentary Inviolability in Turkey.” European Constitutional Law Review 11, no. 2 (2005): 272–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Özbudun, Ergun. Contemporary Turkish Politics: Challenges to Democratic Consolidation. London: Lynne Rienner, 1999.Google Scholar
Robertson, Robert J. “The Effect of Consent Decrees on Local Legislative Immunity.” University of Chicago Law Review 56, no. 3 (1989): 1121–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenwein, Barbara H.Negotiating Space: Power, Restraint and Privileges of Immunity in Early Medieval Europe. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rumpf, Christian. “The Importance of Legislative History Materials in the Interpretation of Statutes in Turkey.” North Carolina Journal of International Law 19, no. 2 (1994): 267–92.Google Scholar
Sevinç, Murat. Türkiye'de Milletvekillerinin Dokunulmazlıkları. Ankara: Kırlangıç Yayınevi, 2004.Google Scholar
Shambayati, Hootan. “A Tale of Two Mayors: Courts and Politics in Iran and Turkey.” International Journal of Middle East Studies 36, no. 2 (2004): 253–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapiro, Martin, and Sweet, Alec Stone. On Law, Politics and Judicialization. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaw, Stanford. “The Central Legislative Councils in Nineteenth-Century Ottoman Reform Movement before 1876.” International Journal of Middle East Studies 1, no. 1 (1970): 51–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Starr, June. Law as Metaphor. From Islamic Courts to the Palace of justice. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1992.Google Scholar
Tocqueville, Alex de. Democracy in America. London: Penguin, 2001.Google Scholar
Turkish Constitutional Court. “Case No. 1997/1 [Political Party Dissolution], Decision No. 1998/1, Decision Date: January 16, 1998, Date of Publication in the Official Gazette: February 22, 1998.” Official Gazette, No. 23266 1998.Google Scholar
Turkish Daily News, December 25, 1996.Google Scholar
Turkish Daily News, May 7, 1997.Google Scholar
Turkish Daily News, April 30, 1998.Google Scholar
Turkish Daily News, February 16, 2002.Google Scholar
Turkish Daily News, July 16, 2004.Google Scholar
Turkish Daily News, September 18, 2005.Google Scholar
Turkish Grand National Assembly. “TBMM İçtüzüğü.” Official Gazette, No: 14506, April 13 1973.Google Scholar
UK Parliament. Reports of the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege in Session. HL 43-1/ HC 214-1, London: The Stationary Office Limited, 1999.Google Scholar
Van der Hulst, Marc. The Parliamentary Mandate. Geneva: Inter-Parliamentary Union, 2000.Google Scholar
Venice Commission. Opinion on the Draft Constitutional Amendments with Regard to the Constitutional Court of Turkey. CDL-AD(2004)024, Strasbourg: Council of Europe, 2004.Google Scholar
Venice Commission. The Regime of Parliamentary Immunity, Draft Report. CDL-INF(1996)001e-rev-prov-restr, Strasbourg: Council of Europe, 1996.Google Scholar
Waldron, Jeremy. Law and Disagreement. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watts, Nicole F. “Allies and Enemies: Pro-Kurdish Parties in Turkish Politics, 1990-94.” International Journal of Middle East Studies 31, no. 4 (1999): 631–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wigley, Simon. “Parliamentary Immunity: Protecting Democracy or Protecting Corruption?” Journal of Political Philosophy 11, no. 1 (2003): 23–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zürcher, Erik J.Turkey: A Modern History. 3 ed. London: I. B. Tauris, 2004.Google Scholar