Turkey's referees of democratic etiquette and transparency

Turkey's new Parliament Speaker Mehmet Ali Şahin

Let me start with the Turkish Grand National Assembly, the Turkish Parliament. A parliament speaker can best be described as being the referee with regards to democratic etiquette and Turkey's new speaker, Mehmet Ali Şahin, is no exception to this rule. He has already been proactively engaged in defusing tension by making conciliatory remarks to all political parties and by commenting on the Turkish government's recent Kurdish initiatives, which are focusing on social inclusion. When representing the Turkish Parliament in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (KKTC) on his first official trip outside Turkey, he again tried to be a fair spokesman for all members of the Turkish Grand National Assembly. So, does the parliament speaker simply have to fulfill a ceremonial role, or is there perhaps more (political) clout attached to this position?

Having been a former Turkish justice minister himself, Şahin is well versed in the intricacies of law-making and is very knowledgeable about defending the right of freedom of expression. Speakers of modern assemblies are indeed the highest presiding officers of their respective institutions. After a day's work, the speaker has the important task of analyzing whether the direction in which the institution is headed is in line with the Parliament's own and the wider constitutional stipulations. He has to carry the banner of free speech, while interrupting those who use offensive language. He represents the country when meeting with other nation's parliament speakers. He is in charge of the smooth running of every session of Parliament and must stay calm under pressure. Presiding over a Parliament is indeed like chairing a very large gathering -- think annual general meetings (AGMs) or an international conference -- except that people who chair those conventions do so once per year while a speaker of Parliament does so whenever the Parliament sits; time-keeping is of the essence, while seeing to the agenda is another important task. As every democratic Parliament is made up of deputies from both the government and the opposition, the speaker must assure fair representation for both during sessions. At times he has the right or duty to forward motions to a country's president or upper house. Very often he has a certain “signatory power,” too. No easy job description by anyone's standards, whether we talk about the Turkish or any other modern parliament.

Speakers of the house in selected other democracies

The United Kingdom's system stipulates that the speaker must stay politically neutral at all times. In most instances, a speaker is elected from amongst the members of the House of Commons. Watching Prime Minister's Question Time, we are reminded that although the members of Parliament are the actual decision makers, not a single sitting would be possible without an impartial presiding officer controlling the flow of comments and their decency, as it is not uncommon in some other countries for deputies to resort to shouting and even physically attacking other members of the house, clearly jeopardizing those institution's reputations and that of democracy itself.

The United States' system attaches even greater importance to the role of speaker of its House of Representatives. Media coverage is immense and whoever gets elected definitely enjoys more than their 15 minutes of fame!

In the German system, the President of the Bundestag is defined as a person who literally reflects upon the values of that democratic institution and is part and parcel of every sitting, who not only presides over the sessions of the Bundestag, but is also looked upon as a guardian and watchdog of discipline, etiquette and democratic standards.

Let me now move on to the second feature of this article -- the ombudsman -- who should become a key ally in the daily work of a parliament speaker and who is the physical link between the legislative, the executive, the administration and the people in so far as he or she takes those public inquiries and complaints on board which have not been properly addressed by government, the opposition or the administration. An ombudsman encourages citizen's participation in society, such as their right to submit petitions. One important comment has to be inserted here: the term “ombudsman” is unisex as there is no “ombudswoman” terminology used at present.

Whereas an ombudsman can justifiably claim to be the interface between a country's citizens and the executive (whose topical roadmap is decided upon in Parliament anyway), the speaker of the house can similarly argue that he or she presides over the most important democratically elected institution of that country, i.e. the national assembly.

From Sweden to Turkey and back again

The predecessor to the modern parliamentary ombudsman has its origins in the year 1713 when Sweden's King Charles XII lived in exile in Turkey; he may even have picked up ideas about safeguarding certain legal provisions from his local hosts. Charles XII wanted to ensure that his judges and civil servants acted in accordance with both laws and duties while he was away from his home soil and hence created the Office of the Supreme Ombudsman. By the year 1809 the position had been changed into the Office of Parliamentary Ombudsman. Over time Sweden became the model for many other democratic nations and in 1995 Jacob Söderman -- of Finnish origin -- was appointed first ever ombudsman of the European Union. The reason for the creation of this position was that the 1992 Maastricht Treaty had strengthened a number of citizen's freedoms and an interface -- or ombudsman -- became a necessity to better safeguard these principles vis-à-vis the executive organs of the EU.

What does the EU's ombudsman actually try to accomplish? The ombudsman investigates complaints from citizens and attempts to resolve them as long as they fall into the EU's legal domain. The ombudsman covers cases which do not fall under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. The ombudsman may instigate an investigation should an issue of relevance arise which no citizen has brought up as of yet. An ombudsman is the interface between the people and the executive branch of the government. It is another vital instrument to help guarantee that laws are actually created for the benefit of the people. Not that the elected politicians can not do that by themselves -- the ombudsman is rather part and parcel of a system of democratic checks and balances. Further details about the EU's ombudsman can be found at www.eu-ombudsman.europa.eu.

What functions for a Turkish Ombudsman's Office?

A future Turkish ombudsman would investigate citizen's complaints, but may also act on her or his own initiative regarding the administration's malfunctioning and would then attempt to resolve these matters. An ombudsman does not infringe upon the independence of the judiciary and would of course not create a “shadow cabinet” of non-elected decision makers as her or his recommendations would neither become secondary law, nor would they be binding; a transparent government, however, should listen to the ombudsman's advice.

Functioning democracies are based upon the free will of their people who regularly cast their votes at the local, regional and national ballot boxes. The institution of a democratically elected Parliament would lose its key objective of being an assembly working on behalf of its citizens if anarchy reigns supreme within the Parliament. Modern parliaments are not supposed to be a cliché or a façade -- they are what they should be: the place where the citizen's elected representatives assemble to determine the future of that society on behalf of no one else but the citizens. The speaker of that parliament is held in high esteem and must act accordingly. A ceremonial role or perhaps more: running the country? No. Helping to run its most important democratic institution and being another very important face of democracy in action? A clear yes!

As every administration is made up of human beings who are prone to err on occasion, an impartial guardian trying to remedy malpractices is required and no one is better equipped to carry out that important task than an institutionalized ombudsman.

The domestic debate in Turkey about whether constitutional change is required to allow a fully-fledged Turkish ombudsman to take up office has blocked its creation for too many years, if not decades. What are those opposed to its setting up afraid of? Is it perhaps democracy itself that frightens them?