See related documentsElection observation report
| Doc. 13611
| 29 September 2014
Observation of the presidential election in Turkey (10 August 2014)
1. Introduction
1. The Bureau of the Parliamentary Assembly, at its
meeting on 22 May 2014, decided to observe the presidential election
in Turkey on 10 August 2014, subject to the receipt of an invitation
and confirmation of the date, and to constitute an ad hoc committee
composed of 30 members plus the rapporteur of the Committee on the
Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the
Council of Europe (Monitoring Committee). The Bureau also authorised
a pre-electoral mission. On 20 June 2014, Mr Reha Denemeç, in his capacity
as Chairperson of the Turkish delegation, invited the Parliamentary
Assembly to observe the presidential election. The Bureau of the
Assembly, at its meeting on 23 June 2014, approved the composition of
the ad hoc committee (see Appendix 1) and appointed Ms Meritxell
Mateu Pi (Andorra, ALDE) as Chairperson.
2. Under the terms of Article 15 of the co-operation agreement
signed between the Parliamentary Assembly and the European Commission
for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission) on 4 October 2004,
“[w]hen the Bureau of the Assembly decides to observe an election
in a country in which electoral legislation was previously examined
by the Venice Commission, one of the rapporteurs of the Venice Commission
on this issue may be invited to join the Assembly's election observation
mission as legal adviser”. In accordance with this provision, the
Bureau of the Assembly invited an expert from the Venice Commission to
join the ad hoc committee as an advisor. However, the Venice Commission
did not take part in the election observation mission, since it
had not provided any opinion on the electoral legislation or any
assistance in the electoral field in Turkey.
3. The pre-electoral delegation was in Ankara on 21 and 22 July
2014 to evaluate the state of preparations and the political climate
in the run-up to the presidential election on 10 August 2014. The
multiparty delegation was composed of six members (see Appendix
1).
4. During its visit to Ankara, the delegation met the three presidential
candidates or their representatives: Mr Ekmeleddin Ihsanoğlu, joint
presidential candidate of the Republican People’s Party (CHP) and
the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP); Mr Yalcir Akdoğan, MP and
Chief adviser of Mr Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, candidate of the Justice
and Development Party (AKP); and Mr Nazmi Gür, MP, representative
of Mr Selahattin Demirtaş, candidate of the Peoples’ Democratic
Party (HDP). It also held an exchange of views with the Vice-President
of the Grand National Assembly, the Turkish delegation to the Parliamentary
Assembly of the Council of Europe, the Chairperson of the Supreme
Board of Elections, the Chairperson of the Radio and Television Supreme
Council, the Head of the Limited Election Observation Mission of
the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights of the Organization
for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE/ODIHR) to Turkey,
the Head of the European Union delegation to Turkey, and representatives
of civil society and the media. At the end of its visit, the pre-electoral
delegation released a statement (Appendix 2).
5. For the main election observation mission, the ad hoc committee
operated in the framework of an International Election Observation
Mission (IEOM) alongside the delegation of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly
and the Limited Election Observation Mission (LEOM) of the OSCE/ODIHR.
Ms Vilija Aleknaitė-Abramikienė was the Special co-ordinator to
lead the short-term OSCE observer mission; Ms Åsa Lindestam was
Head of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly Delegation; and Ambassador
Geert-Hinrich Ahrens was the Head of the OSCE/ODIHR Limited Election
Observation Mission.
6. The ad hoc committee met in Ankara from 8 to 11 August 2014.
It met, amongst others, representatives of the three presidential
candidates, members of the Supreme Board of Elections (SBE) and
of the Radio and Television Supreme Council, and representatives
of civil society and the media. The programme of the ad hoc committee’s
meetings is set out in Appendix 4.
7. On the day of the ballot, the ad hoc committee split into
16 teams, which observed the elections in Ankara and its outskirts,
as well as in the following regions and municipalities: Istanbul,
Izmir, Adana, Gaziantep, Mersin, Diyarbakir, Antalya, Van and Konya.
8. The presidential election held in Turkey on 10 August 2014
gave voters for the first time the opportunity to choose their president
directly. The ad hoc committee concluded that the three candidates,
representing different political positions, were generally able
to campaign freely and that freedom of assembly and of association
were respected. However, the use of his official position by the
Prime Minister, as well as biased media coverage, gave him a distinct
advantage over the other candidates. The press release published
by the IEOM after the elections appears in Appendix 5.
2. Legal
framework
9. The legal framework in Turkey is generally conducive
to the conduct of democratic elections, even though key areas are
in need of improvement. The 1982 Constitution, which was adopted
under military rule, concentrates on bans and prohibitions rather
than broad guarantees of fundamental rights and freedoms, as it entrenches
undue limitations on the freedoms of association, assembly and expression,
as well as on electoral rights.
10. In 2007, a constitutional referendum changed the indirect
presidential election system to a direct election of the president
by popular vote. Constitutional amendments also reduced the term
of office of the president from seven to five years and increased
the limit from one to two terms. In 2012, the Law on Presidential Elections
(LPE) was passed, regulating various aspects of the new presidential
election system. However, the 1961 Law on Basic Provisions on Elections
and Voter Registers (LBPEVR), which regulates all elections, was not
harmonised with the LPE, leading to ambiguities. The Supreme Board
of Elections adopted regulations and decisions to supplement the
legal framework, but, in some instances, SBE regulations, including
on the campaign period and financing, did not effectively develop
the legislation, exceeded SBE authority or conflicted with the law.
11. Now, for the first time, the LPE regulates campaign finance
to some extent; the LBPEVR was amended to incorporate regulations
for out-of-country voting; restrictions on using unofficial languages
have been relaxed, including amendment of the LBPEVR in March 2014
to permit campaigning in languages other than Turkish (it is to
be noted that the parliament adopted on 10 July 2014 a framework
law enabling the continuation of the negotiations with a view to
the resolution of the Kurdish issue). However, SBE regulations required Turkish
to be the main language in campaign coverage and advertising.
12. The LPE requires the resignation of presidential candidates
from certain public positions, but does not specifically refer to
the post of Prime Minister, ministers or MPs.
13. The law does not create a legal basis for domestic and international
observation of elections. This has been already recommended by the
Parliamentary Assembly
and
by the Venice Commission in the Code of Good Practice in Electoral
Matters.
International
observers were, however, invited and allowed to observe the election,
but they encountered difficulties in accessing a number of polling
stations, where the ballot box committees (BBCs) were obviously
not aware of the rights of observers. Political parties have the
right to nominate observers, although there are no provisions for
the accreditation of such observers. As for citizen observers, they
were only able to operate in collaboration with political parties
or through the goodwill of BBCs on an ad hoc basis.
3. Electoral administration,
registration of the voters lists and candidates
14. The presidential election was administered by a four-tier
election administration: the SBE (a permanent body with 11 members
who are judges elected by the courts for a six-year term), 81 provincial
electoral boards (PEBs), 1 067 district electoral boards (DEBs)
and 165 574 BBCs. In addition, one DEB was established in Ankara
to co-ordinate the activities of the 1 186 out-of-country BBCs.
15. Eligible political parties were entitled to nominate non-voting
representatives or members at all levels of electoral boards. Although
it nominated a presidential candidate, the HDP was not an eligible
party. Nevertheless, it was permitted to nominate a non-voting representative
to the SBE, but not to lower boards or as BBC members.
16. For the first time, voters residing abroad were given the
opportunity for out-of-country voting, without having to present
themselves at the border, as requested by the Parliamentary Assembly.
This was possible in 54 countries
(from 31 July to 3 August) and at 42 border crossings (from 26 July
to 10 August). According to the SBE, the procedure to assign voters
abroad to polling stations was problematic. Out-of-country ballots
were returned and counted in Ankara.
17. Voter registration is passive. The permanent central voter
register is maintained by the SBE and linked to a register operated
by the Ministry of the Interior. The total number of eligible voters
was 52 894 120 in Turkey and 2 798 670 out-of-country.
18. There was overall confidence in the quality of the voter register.
However, the absence of a right to appeal concerning election administration
decisions limited the ability to seek effective judicial remedies
in case of election disputes.
19. Active conscripts, cadets, and prisoners who have committed
intentional crimes, regardless of the severity of the crime, were
not eligible to vote. On 20 June 2014, the SBE decided that all
convicts outside the prison were entitled to vote, which was a partial
implementation of a ruling of the European Court of Human Rights
of September 2013, that Turkey’s ban on convicted prisoners’ voting
rights is too broad and in breach of the right to free elections.
20. Presidential candidates must be at least 40 years of age,
have a higher education, and be eligible to be a member of parliament
– which means a ban on all persons convicted of a non-exhaustive
list of a broad range of crimes, or who have not completed their
military service. These restrictions (except the age requirement)
are incompatible with the fundamental right to stand for election.
21. Also, presidential candidates require the support of at least
20 MPs, while each MP is allowed to support only one nominee. This
limits the possibilities for independent candidacies: 13 individuals,
including one woman, applied as independent candidates but were
not registered by the SBE due to their lacking support from the
required number of MPs.
22. Parliamentary parties and parties that jointly received at
least 10% of the votes in the last election may each nominate one
presidential candidate. This was the case for the three running
candidates: Mr Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, nominated by the AKP; Mr Ekmeleddin
Ihsanoğlu, jointly nominated by the CHP and MHP; and Mr Selahattin
Demirtaş, nominated by the HDP.
4. Election campaign
and media environment
23. The campaign officially began on 11 July (in line
with the LPE). The LBPEVR defined its end as 9 August at 6 p.m.
However, the SBE decided that the official start of the campaign
would be considered to be 31 July (based on the LBPEVR, which provides
that the official campaign period starts 10 days prior to election
day) and therefore deviated from the LPE, by deferring, by nearly
three weeks, the application of key campaign prohibitions and guarantees
stipulated in the legislation, including the use of State administrative
resources and official positions for campaign purposes. This obviously
benefited Mr Erdoğan.
24. The campaign was characterised by a general respect for fundamental
freedoms and candidates were generally able to campaign freely.
However, the use of official events for campaigning gave the Prime
Minister an obvious advantage over the other candidates. He travelled
extensively throughout the country in his official capacity and
combined this with campaign events organised by the AKP and sometimes
by the local administration. Campaigning also took place during
inaugurations, by the Prime Minister, of various State infrastructure
projects.
25. This large-scale misuse of State administrative resources
and the lack of a clear distinction between State and party activities
is clearly at odds with the Report on the Misuse of Administrative
Resources during Electoral Processes, by the Venice Commission.
26. As for campaign financing, the law limits the amount an individual
can donate for each round to one month’s salary of the highest-ranking
civil servant; the SBE defined this amount at 9 082.51 TL (approximately €3
150). Candidates cannot receive public funding and loans are not
permitted. Mr Erdoğan received donations of 55 million TL (approximately
€19 million), Mr Ihsanoğlu received donations of 8.5 million TL
(approximately €3 million) and Mr Demirtaş received donations of
1.2 million TL (approximately €420 000).
27. Other than individual donations, the law does not provide
for other sources of funding. However, there is no limit for using
candidates’ personal funds. This, combined with the non-existence
of a ceiling for the total campaign expenditure, created imbalances
between candidates and stands at odds with the position of the Venice
Commission on this issue.
28. Media coverage of the campaign was biased in favour of the
Prime Minister. The major television stations provided extensive
coverage of his campaign and only limited coverage of that of the
other candidates. This imbalance in media coverage was compounded
by the predominance of paid political advertising for Mr Erdoğan
and the absence of a clear definition of the impartiality requirement
for broadcasters. This disproportionate coverage limited pluralistic
information on political alternatives for voters.
29. According to the OSCE/ODIHR LEOM media monitoring, three of
the five monitored television stations, including the public broadcaster,
TRT1, displayed explicit bias in campaign coverage in favour of
the Prime Minister in news, current events, and discussion programmes.
TRT1 devoted 51% of coverage to Mr Erdoğan, while covering Mr İhsanoğlu
and Mr Demirtaş with 32% and 18%, respectively. In addition, 25%
of Mr İhsanoğlu’s coverage was negative in tone, while Mr Erdoğan’s
coverage was almost exclusively positive. TRT adhered to its legal
obligation to broadcast a total of 30 minutes of free airtime for
each candidate. ATV devoted 70% to Mr Erdoğan, while Mr İhsanoğlu
and Mr Demirtaş received 18% and 11%, respectively. 49% of Mr İhsanoğlu’s
coverage was negative in tone. NTV gave 70% of its coverage to Mr
Erdoğan, and only devoted 18 and 11% to Mr İhsanoğlu and Mr Demirtaş,
respectively; it covered all candidates in a positive/neutral tone.
CNN TÜRK devoted 54% of its coverage to Mr Erdoğan; however, it
displayed a critical approach by providing 28% of this coverage
in a negative tone. Mr İhsanoğlu and Mr Demirtaş got 27% and 20% coverage,
respectively. Samanyolu TV displayed a bias against Mr Erdoğan and
in favour of Mr İhsanoğlu, with the Prime Minister receiving 62%
coverage, of which 92% was negative. Mr İhsanoğlu and Mr Demirtaş
got 28% and 11% coverage, respectively. In addition, on monitored
television stations, Mr Erdoğan was featured in almost seven hours
of purchased political advertising, while Mr İhsanoğlu purchased
36 minutes and Mr Demirtaş 19 minutes.
30. There were no live televised debates between the three presidential
candidates.
5. Election day
31. On election day, the members of the ad hoc committee
were able to note that the ballot proceeded generally in an orderly
manner. Overall, the vote was organised in a professional and efficient
manner. Most BBCs were well prepared and respected voting procedures.
32. However, in many polling stations observed, not all entitled
political parties were present as members of the BBCs. Party and
citizen observers were present in less than half of the polling
stations. As already mentioned, there were cases where international
observers were not allowed to observe the voting process (most probably
due to a lack of information of the BBCs). A few isolated incidents
of violence were reported throughout the day.
33. The members of the ad hoc committee drew attention to a number
of shortcomings in the polling stations they visited:
- in at least one polling station
in Ankara, voting was possible shortly before the official opening
time of 8 a.m.;
- in a polling station in the region of Van, the counting
started 30 minutes before the official closing time of 5 p.m. (although
380 out of the 386 voters on the list had already voted);
- supporters of Mr Erdoğan were seen distributing snacks
and water at the gates of a polling station in Ankara;
- a team visiting a hospital in Ankara noted that there
were no arrangements for hospitalised persons to vote;
- a team visiting a polling station set up in a school in
Ankara noted that the director of the school felt responsible for
the voting process and acted in consequence, even though he was
not a member of the polling station;
- there were isolated cases of family voting;
- disabled persons encountered difficulties in accessing
some polling stations;
- in Diyarbakir, in a polling station set up in a prison,
only half of the detainees could vote (for reasons explained in
Section 3).
34. On 15 August 2014, the SBE announced the results of the election:
- Mr Recep Tayyip Erdoğan: 51.79%
- Mr Ekmeleddin Ihsanoğlu: 38.44%
- Mr Selahattin Demirtaş: 9.76%.
The voter
turnout was 74.13%.
6. Conclusions
35. The presidential election of 10 August 2014 was a
crucial moment for political life in Turkey: following the constitutional
reform of 2007, 53 million Turks, for the first time, directly elected
the President of the Republic, conferring on him a new form of legitimacy
and a more direct link with citizens. This opened a new political
era in Turkey.
36. The ad hoc committee took note that the parliament had adopted,
on 10 July 2014, a framework law enabling the continuation of the
negotiations with a view to the resolution of the Kurdish issue.
It welcomed the possibility for campaigning to be carried out in
languages other than Turkish, including Kurdish.
37. The Supreme Board of Elections and the election administration
functioned in a professional manner, and there was overall confidence
in the quality of the voter register. However, the absence of a
right to appeal election administration decisions limited the ability
to seek effective judicial remedy in case of election disputes. This
stands at odds with the Venice Commission norms and should be remedied.
38. The three candidates for the first direct presidential election
in Turkey were generally able to campaign freely and freedom of
assembly and of association was respected. However, the Prime Minister’s
use of his official position, along with biased media coverage,
gave him a distinct advantage over the other candidates.
39. On election day, the vote was generally organised in a professional
and efficient manner and for the most part election procedures were
followed.
40. However, the ad hoc committee stresses that an election process
is much more than just an election day.
41. It identified a number of shortcomings which the Turkish authorities
will need to address in order to improve electoral processes, in
particular unbalanced media coverage, misuse of administrative resources
and campaign funding provisions.
42. While the legal framework was generally conducive to the holding
of democratic elections, a lack of clarity and accountability resulted
in inconsistencies in its implementation. In particular, discrepancies remained
between the 2012 law and earlier laws regulating elections in general.
43. The recent introduction of campaign finance regulations was
a step forward, although these regulations did not extend to private
and party sources of funding or provide for adequate oversight of
campaign financing or sanctions in the event of violations. The
ad hoc committee welcomed these first steps taken to regulate the funding
of the election campaign – including the limitation of individual
donations. However, it considers that it would be necessary to reinforce
the legislation by introducing a ceiling for campaign expenditures,
to enable a proper monitoring of the spending of the funds and to
ensure same opportunities for all candidates. The legislation should
be fine-tuned to clarify the role of political parties, the issue
of contributions in kind and personal resources of candidates. The
current monitoring mechanism of election campaign accounts should be
improved.
44. The ad hoc committee noted that the Prime Minister was not
required by the law to resign, but also that the use of administrative
resources was forbidden by law. This position gave him disproportionate
access to resources and media coverage, in the absence of strict
regulations, and the use of administrative resources for electoral
purposes was intensive. The ad hoc committee therefore calls upon
the Turkish authorities to adopt clearer and stricter regulations
as regards the activities carried out by incumbent politicians standing
for presidential elections.
45. All broadcasters, including the Turkish Radio and Television
Corporation, were required to ensure an impartial and equal media
coverage of the campaign, free from any self-censorship. However,
media coverage during the campaign was unbalanced despite the existing
legal provisions. The ad hoc committee calls on all stakeholders,
in particular the Radio Television Supreme Council and the Supreme
Board of Elections, to be more efficient in the future in applying
the law and using the measures foreseen in the legislation and to
ensure equal airtime to all candidates.
46. The ad hoc committee welcomed the possibility offered for
the first time to Turkish citizens residing abroad to vote outside
of their country. It noted, however, that some concerns existed,
in particular on the safety of the ballot papers during their transportation
to Turkey for counting. Also, citizens residing abroad had to get
an appointment prior to the election period with their national
diplomatic representations for registration as voters, which was
sometimes difficult. Of the total of nearly 2.8 million Turkish
citizens living abroad entitled to vote, only some 232 000 did so.
Procedures should be simplified for future elections.
47. The introduction of a clear legal provision accrediting both
domestic and international observers during future elections is
necessary, as it would further increase the transparency of and
confidence in the election process as a whole. Observers should
be able to freely observe all steps of the electoral process. The
ad hoc committee expresses the wish that the Turkish authorities
remedy this issue before the next elections.
48. There is considerable room for improvement to create a level
playing field for elections in Turkey and the ad hoc committee hopes
that this will be the case for the next parliamentary elections,
scheduled for 2015.
49. The Council of Europe stands ready to provide its expertise
and to continue to work with the country to support its efforts
to meet Council of Europe standards.
Appendix 1 – Composition
of the ad hoc committee
(open)
Based on proposals by the political groups
of the Assembly, the ad hoc committee was composed as follows:
- Meritxell MATEU PI (Andorra,
ALDE), Head of delegation
- Socialist Group (SOC)
- Andreas GROSS, Switzerland
- Tadeusz IWIŃSKI,* Poland
- Birute VESAITE, Lithuania
- Bernadette BOURZAI, France
- Ingrid ANTICEVIC-MARINOVIC, Croatia
- Kostas TRIANTAFYLLOS, Greece
- Florin IORDACHE, Romania
- Athina KYRIAKIDOU, Cyprus
- Carina HÄGG, Sweden
- Group of the European People’s
Party (EPP/CD)
- Viorel
Riceard BADEA, Romania
- Zsolt CSENGER-ZALÁN, Hungary
- Jim D’ARCY, Ireland
- Foteini PIPILI, Greece
- Marietta de POURBAIX-LUNDIN,* Sweden
- Konstantinos TZAVARAS, Greece
- Emanuelis ZINGERIS, Lithuania
- European Democrat Group (EDG)
- Robert NEILL, United Kingdom
- Ingebjørg GODSKESEN,* Norway
- Alliance of Liberals and Democrats
for Europe (ALDE)
- Mark
VERHEIJEN, Netherlands
- Meritxell MATEU PI,* Andorra
- Doris FIALA, Switzerland
- Andrea RIGONI, Italy
- Group of the United European
Left (UEL)
- Andrej
HUNKO*, Germany
- Grigore PETRENCO, Republic of Moldova
- Rapporteur of the Monitoring
Committee (ex officio)
- Secretariat
- Bogdan TORCĂTORIU, Administrative
Officer, Interparliamentary Co-operation and Election Observation
Division
- Sylvie AFFHOLDER, Secretary, Monitoring Committee
- Danièle GASTL, Assistant, Interparliamentary Co-operation
and Election Observation Division
- Anne GODFREY, Assistant, Interparliamentary Co-operation
and Election Observation Division
*
members of the pre-election delegation (20-23 July 2014)
Appendix 2 – Programme of
the pre-electoral mission (20‑22 July 2014)
(open)
Monday,
21 July 2014
9:00-10:00 Meeting of the Parliamentary Assembly delegation
10:15-11:15 Meeting with Ambassador Geert-Hinrich Ahrens,
Head of the OSCE/ODIHR Election Observation Mission, Ms Polyna Lemos,
Deputy Head, and their staff
11:30-12:30 Meeting with Ambassador Stefano Manservisi, Head
of the Delegation of the European Union to Turkey, Mr François Naucodie
(Common Foreign Security Policy) and Ms Aycan Akdeniz (Domestic
Politics)
14:30-15:30 Meeting with representatives of the media:
- Aljazeera: Ece Goksedef
- BIANET: Erol Onderoglu
- Cihan News Agency: Vedat Denizli
- Diplomatic Observer Magazine: Ali Faruk Imre and Ceren
Saydam
- Today’s Zaman: Aydin Albayrak
15:45-16:45 Meeting
with representatives of civil society:
– Association for Monitoring Human Rights (AMER): Selin Dagistanli,
Nezat Tastan
– Checks and Balances Network: Suleyman Basa, Mehmet Kaya
– Human Rights Association: Öztürk Türkdoğan
– Transparency International: E. Oya Ozarslan
17:20-18:15 Meeting with Mr Ekmeleddin Ihsanoğlu, joint presidential
candidate of the Republican People’s Party (CHP) and the Nationalist
Movement Party (MHP)
18:30-20:00 Meeting with Mr Yalçın Akdoğan, MP (AK Party),
Adviser to the Prime Minister
Tuesday, 22 July 2014
9:30-10:30 Meeting with Mr Sadi Güven, Chairman of the Supreme
Board of Elections (SBE)
11:00-12:00 Meeting with Mr Sadık Yakut, Vice-President of
the Grand National Assembly
12:00-12:30 Meeting with representatives of the Radio and
Television Supreme Council:
- Prof
Dr Davut Dursun, President
- Prof Dr Hasan Tahsin Fendoğlu, Vice President
- Ali Öztunç, member (from CHP)
- Esat Çiplak, member (from MHP)
- Süleyman Demirkan, member
(and some
officials from several departments: International relations; Legal
Affairs; and Monitoring and evaluation)
15:00-16:00 Meeting with Mr Mustafa Şentop, Deputy Chairman
of AK Party, in charge of Election Affairs (before the meeting,
powerpoint presentation by Mr İbrahim Uslu, Head of ANAR (Ankara
Social Research Center))
16:15-17:15 Meeting with Mr Nazmi Gür, member of HDP, also
member of the Turkish Delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly
20:20 Iftar hosted by
Mr Denemec with the participation of the members of the ad hoc committee,
the secretariat and the members of the Turkish delegation
Appendix 3 – Statement by
the Assembly’s pre-electoral delegation
(open)
Strasbourg, 23.07.2014 – A six-member(*)
cross-party delegation of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council
of Europe (PACE) was in Ankara on 21 and 22 July 2014, at the invitation
of the Turkish delegation to the PACE, for a pre-electoral visit
ahead of the 10 August 2014 presidential election.
It met the three presidential candidates or their representatives:
– Ekmeleddin Ihsanoğlu, joint presidential candidate of the
Republican People’s Party (CHP) and the Nationalist Movement Party
(MHP);
– Yalcir Akdoğan, MP and Chief advisor of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan,
candidate of the Justice and Development party (AKP);
– Nazmi Gür, MP, representative of Selahattin Demirtaş, candidate
of the Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP).
The delegation also held an exchange of views with the Vice-President
of the Grand National Assembly, the Turkish delegation to the PACE,
the Chairman of the Supreme Board of Elections and the Radio Television Supreme
Council, the Head of the OSCE/ODIHR election observation mission
to Turkey, the Head of the EU delegation to Turkey, representatives
of civil society and the media.
The delegation noted that the presidential election of 10
August 2014 will be a crucial moment for political life in Turkey:
following the constitutional reform of 2007, 53 million Turks will,
for the first time, directly elect the President of the Republic,
conferring on him greater legitimacy. This will open a new political
era in Turkey. The delegation welcomed the possibility for campaigning
to be carried out in languages other than Turkish, including Kurdish.
The delegation was informed that the parliament adopted on
10 July 2014 a framework law enabling the continuation of the negotiations
with a view to the resolution of the Kurdish issue.
The delegation welcomed the possibility offered for the first
time to the nearly 3 million Turkish citizens residing abroad to
vote outside of their country. It calls upon the authorities to
ensure the smooth conduct of these elections carried out in 53 countries,
and to provide the necessary guarantees to ensure that the ballot
papers will be transported securely to Turkey for transparent counting.
The delegation welcomed the first steps taken to regulate
the funding of the election campaign – including the limitation
of individual donations. However, it would be necessary to reinforce
the legislation by introducing a ceiling for campaign expenditures
to enable a proper monitoring of the spending of the funds and to
ensure same opportunities for all candidates. The legislation should
be fine-tuned to clarify the role of political parties, the issue
of in-kind contributions and personal resources of candidates, etc.
The delegation highlighted the weaknesses of the current monitoring
mechanism of election campaign accounts.
The delegation took note that the current Prime minister is
one of the presidential candidates. It noted that the Prime minister
is not required by the law to resign but also that the use of administrative
resources is forbidden by law. It expressed its concerns, however,
regarding the fact that this position gives him disproportionate access
to resources and media coverage, in the absence of strict regulations.
The issue of misuse of administrative resources was raised on several
occasions during the meetings. The delegation therefore called upon
the authorities to adopt clearer and stricter regulations related
to the activities carried out by incumbent politicians standing
for presidential elections.
The delegation recalled that all broadcasters, including the
Turkish Radio and Television Corporation (TRT), are required to
ensure an impartial and equal media coverage of the campaign, free
from any self-censorship. The delegation regretted the lack of a
timely response by the State institutions to redress unbalanced
media coverage during the campaign despite the existing legal provisions.
The delegation calls upon all stakeholders, in particular the Radio
Television Supreme Council and the Supreme Board of Election, to
be more efficient in applying the law and using the measures foreseen
in the legislation and to ensure equal airtime to all candidates.
The delegation noted that there was in general a good level
of trust in the conduct of the voting on election day. It reiterated,
however, its concerns about the shortcomings in the regulations
concerning the campaign expenditure, misuse of administrative resources
by one candidate and unbalanced media coverage. The introduction
of a clear legal provision accrediting domestic and international
observers during future elections would further increase the transparency
of and confidence in the election process as a whole. Observers should
be able to freely observe all steps of the electoral process (voting,
counting, drafting and tabulation of the minutes).
The pre-electoral delegation hopes that the elections will
allow Turkish citizens to express themselves freely and to take
an active part in the first direct election of their President.
A fully-fledged delegation of about 30 PACE observers will
return to the country to observe the election of 10 August 2014.
(*) Members of the delegation: Meritxell Mateu Pi (Andorra,
ALDE), head of the delegation; Tadeusz Iwinski (Poland, SOC); Marietta
de Pourbaix-Lundin (Sweden, EPP/CD); Ingebjørg Godskesen (Norway,
EDG); Andrej Hunko (Germany, UEL), Josette Durrieu (France, SOC),
PACE rapporteur for post-monitoring dialogue with Turkey
Appendix 4 – Programme of
the election observation mission (8-11 August 2014)
(open)
Friday,
8 August 2014
09:15-10:00 Meeting of the Parliamentary Assembly delegation
10:15-10:30 Opening by the heads of parliamentary delegations:
- Ms Meritxell Mateu Pi, Head
of the Delegation of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of
Europe
- Ms Åsa Lindestam, Head of OSCE Parliamentary Assembly
Delegation
10:30-12:00 Briefing by the OSCE/ODIHR
Limited Election Observation Mission:
Introduction and overview of findings to date:
- Ambassador Geert-Hinrich Ahrens,
Head of the OSCE/ODIHR Limited Election Observation Mission
Legal framework:
- Ms
Marla Morry, Legal Analyst
Political background and the campaign:
- Mr Vadim Zhdanovich, Political
Analyst
Campaign finance:
- Mr
Zorislav Antun Petrović, Campaign Finance Analyst
Media:
- Ms Elma Šehalić,
Media Analyst
Polling procedures:
- Mr
Pavel Cabacenco, Election Analyst
Questions and Answers
14:15-14:30 OSCE/ODIHR LEOM Security Expert, Mr Fergus Harvey
Anderson
14:30-15:15 Meeting with the members of the Supreme Board
of Elections:
- Mr Mehmet Kürtül
- Ms Nilgün İpek
- Mr Ali Kaya
- Mr İlhan Hanağası
- Mr İbrahim Zengin
15:15-17:45 Meetings
with representatives of the presidential candidates:
– Professor Dr Ali Tekin, Campaign Manager for Professor
Dr Ekmeleddin İhsanoğlu, joint presidential candidate of the Republican
People’s Party (CHP) and the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP)
– Mr Adil Zazani, Representative of Mr Selahattin Demirtaş,
presidential candidate of the Peace and Democracy Party (HDP)
– Mr Mustafa Şentop, representative of the Prime Minister
Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, presidential candidate of the Justice and
Development Party (AKP)
Saturday, 9 August 2014
09:00-10:00 Meeting with representatives of the media:
- Aydın Albayrak, Columnist,
Today’s Zaman
10:00-11:00 Meeting with representatives
of civil society
– Ms E. Oya Ozaslan, Chairperson, Transparency International
– Ms Feray Salman, Chairperson, Human Rights Platform
– Mr Ozturk Turkdogan, Chairperson, Human Rights Association
– Ms Çiğdem Sever, Ankara Representative, Association of
Monitoring Equal Rights
– Mr Mehmet Pancaroğlu, Ankara Representative, Vote and Beyond
11:30-12:00 Meeting with members of the Radio and Television
Supreme Council (RTSC)
- Mr Ali
Öztunç
- Mr Hamit Ersoy
12:00-12:30 Meeting with
the OSCE/ODIHR LEOM long-term observers deployed in Ankara
12:30-13:00 Meeting with interpreters and drivers for the
OSCE Parliamentary Assembly and PACE teams deployed in Ankara
Sunday, 10 August 2014
Observation of the vote
Monday, 11 August 2014
8:30-9:30 PACE delegation meeting (debriefing)
13:30 Joint press conference
Appendix 5 – Statement by
the International Election Observation Mission (IEOM)
(open)
Presidential
candidates in Turkey able to campaign freely, but playing field
not level
Strasbourg, 11/08/2014 – Three candidates, representing different
political positions, were generally able to campaign freely, and
freedoms of assembly and association were respected in the 10 August
presidential election in Turkey, international election observers
said in a statement issued today. However, the Prime Minister’s
use of his official position, along with biased media coverage,
gave him a distinct advantage over the other candidates.
“This first direct presidential election demonstrated that
there is a vibrant political life in Turkey, and the preliminary
results show the potential for a healthy balance in political forces,”
said Vilija Aleknaite Abramikiene, Special Co-ordinator who led
the short-term OSCE observer mission. “However, the challenges we
have noted, particularly the imbalanced media coverage, must be
overcome to fully live up to the democratic aspirations of the people.”
The Supreme Board of Elections (SBE) and the election administration
functioned in a professional manner, and there was overall confidence
in the quality of the voter register, the preliminary statement
notes. However, the absence of a right to appeal election administration
decisions limits the ability to seek effective judicial remedy in
case of election disputes.
“The presence of political party representatives in polling
stations across the country yesterday is an important oversight
mechanism,” said Åsa Lindestam, Head of the OSCE PA Delegation.
“I hope that citizens and NGOs will also be given the right to observe
in the future, bringing Turkey’s dynamic civil society fully into
the election process.”
International observers noted that media coverage of the campaign
reflected a bias in favour of the Prime Minister, with major television
stations providing extensive coverage of his campaign and only limited
coverage of other contestants. The imbalance in media coverage was
compounded by the predominance of paid political advertising for
him and by the absence of a clear definition of the impartiality
requirement for broadcasters.
“The direct election of the president marks only the beginning
of a new phase of Turkey’s democratic development,” said Meritxell
Mateu Pi, Head of the PACE delegation. “We will continue to work
with Turkey and support its efforts in fulfilling the Council of
Europe’s standards.”
The largely active and peaceful campaign was undermined by
the misuse of State resources, the staging of campaign activities
during official State events and, in some cases, attacks on the
campaign of one of the candidates. The introduction of campaigning
in minority languages was a positive change to the legal framework,
although recent election administration regulations still require
that the main language of campaign coverage and advertising be Turkish.
The decision by the SBE to apply an earlier law than the 2012 Law
on Presidential Elections, thus resulting in a ten-day campaign
period, meant that campaigning was underway for almost three weeks
before key campaign regulations took effect.
“Despite guarantees in the law, this decision of the SBE contributed
to the lack of a level playing field”, said Ambassador Geert-Hinrich
Ahrens, Head of the OSCE/ODIHR Limited Election Observation Mission.
“The delay in applying these provisions and the misuse of State
administrative resources benefited the governing party’s candidate.”
While the legal framework was found to be generally conducive
to the holding of democratic elections, a lack of clarity and accountability
resulted in inconsistencies in its implementation. In particular,
discrepancies remain between the 2012 law and earlier laws regulating
elections in general. The recent introduction of campaign finance
regulations was a step forward, although these regulations do not
extend to private and party sources of funding or provide for adequate
oversight of campaign financing or sanctions in the event of violations.
In a positive step, the introduction of out-of-country voting
gave nearly three million citizens abroad the chance to vote. However,
active conscripts, cadets and prisoners who have been convicted
of intentional crimes were not permitted to vote.
In the limited number of polling stations visited by the international
observers, election day was generally organised in a professional
and efficient manner, and polling station committees were well prepared
and followed voting procedures overall.