In a statement to the press yesterday, Kuzu criticized the current system in place for political party closures in Turkey, saying: “Under the current law, a political party with a parliamentary group or the government administration can file a criminal complaint with the Supreme Court of Appeals Chief Prosecutor’s Office regarding a political party. Despite the existence of this legislation, to date no such complaint has been filed. The chief prosecutor of the Supreme Court of Appeals acts as a threat to political parties every other moment, hovering like the sword of Damocles.”
Kuzu noted that while in the past 50 years only three or four European political parties had been shut down by the state, this figure was around 25 in Turkey, urging that the constitutional changes to be made regarding political party closure be constructed while taking the Venice criteria into consideration. “In Turkey, it doesn’t matter how large a margin a political party wins in elections; it’s all up to the chief prosecutor. Closure cases are opened almost upon a whim, and the Constitutional Court shuts the parties down. There are no nations in the world in which political parties run such a large risk of closure as in Turkey,” he said.
“In the constitutional changes to be made, the chief prosecutor must be required to seek Parliament’s permission before opening any such closure case. A sufficient or significant majority of [parliamentary deputies’ votes] must be ensured,” Kuzu said, recalling that party closure in Spain and Germany is only possible through parliamentary approval.
Kuzu recommended that the chief prosecutor be required to submit reasons why a party should be shut down to Parliament so that deputies can evaluate the evidence and decide whether a closure case should be opened. Noting that Turkey is frequently criticized by the European Union over party closures, he again urged that the Venice criteria, which the European Court of Human Rights views as essential, should be the foundation of any changes.
