EZGİ ÇEŞTEPE

Former Advisor to MP for Istanbul

GNAT, 24TH TERM

June 8, 2015

ANALYSIS OF 24TH TERM OF 1

THE GRAND NATIONAL ASSEMBLY OF TURKEY AND ITS LEGISLATIVE

ROLE ON THE ACCESSION OF TURKEY TO EUROPEAN UNION

European Union

European Union is composed of 4 main collective executive bodies that are European

Commission, European Council, European Court of Justice and European Parliament whose

powers and authorities are set out with treaties whose updates are revised periodically

(Wallace, 2010). The administration and maintenance of European Union are organised and

performed with the coordination of these institutions. With 28 member states, 6 candidate

countries and 2 potential candidates, European Union dominates economic, social and 2

political agenda of world affairs pioneering the motivation for ‘Peaceful Europe’ since 3

1945 ( European Union, n.d.)

Unlike European Union’s method of coordination; Turkey, associate member of

European Economic Community since 1959 and full membership applicant since 1987, has a

different structure of coordination to accession regarding Turkey’s full­membership to

European Union.

1 2011­ 2015 2 The name “ European Union” is legalized with Treaty of Maastricht in 1992. 3 European Union ( n.d.). EU History

Turkey

The Grand National Assembly of Turkey (GNAT) with its EU Harmonization Committee

and The Ministry of EU Affairs are the two main authority bodies of Turkey attained to work 4

on Turkey’s accession to European Union and also in charge of all stages regarding relations

between Turkey and European Union. The EU Harmonization Committee under GNAT,

diversified with the varying perspectives and party policies of political parties towards EU,

serves both support, amendments as well as critiques to legislative adoption and adaptation

of EU Acquis to Turkish legislative bills/ proposals while Ministry of EU Affairs serves

mainly governing function of ongoing accession process with captaincy and policy of ruling

party.

In order to reveal accurate picture of EU Affairs within legislative mechanism, a closer

look to functions and operations of of EU Harmonization Committee is intended.

The EU Harmonization Committee

Justice and Development Party­ ruling party (AKP), The Republican People’s Party­ the

main opposition (CHP), The Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) and The People’s

Democratic Party (HDP) are the 4 main political parties that occupy the seats of parliament

and its legislative committees in GNAT with number of member of parliaments

decremental in the mentioned order; AKP 15, CHP 6, MHP 2, HDP1 and independent 1. 5

Including fulfilling of “Turkey’s commitment on accession to EU” as one of its

article to party program under the topic of “Foreign Policies”, AKP declares its full

support to Turkey’s accession to EU ( AKP, 2002). The party has representative

office in Brussels since January, 2015.

With its party program, CHP asserts its full support to Turkey’s full membership to

European Union, putting forward a correlation of EU standards with Mustafa Kemal

4 The EU Harmonization Committee established in 2003 and The Ministry of European Affairs in 2007. 5 Previous MP of AKP, resigned in December 27, 2013.

Atatürk’s modernization vision. (CHP, 2011). CHP is pioneering political party that 6

opened representative office in Brussels to develop positive dialogue with European

Union bodies and represent CHP. The office is active since 2008.

Despite having MPs in the committee, MHP is the solitary party that does not give

full support to Turkey’s accession to EU stating that “Turkey is not forced, indigent

and obliged to EU ( MHP, 2010).

HDP, unlike than other political parties declares its perspective in its election bulletin

for 2015 General elections, states that “ HDP deals Turkey’s accession to EU in

terms of parallel principles of European Union such as human rights, rule of law,

checks and balances and local democracy” ( HDP, 2015).

Despite the diverse approaches of parties to Turkey’s accession to EU, the ultimate

report of committee about government bills are dominated by ruling party’s ideology with no

reference to remainder. Solely, counter­ statements of opposition parties are attached to bill 7

so as to be served to MPs before law making process. Committee’s reports are analysed, a

fortiori support to ruling party’s enforcements and efforts to EU Affairs is common rather

than analysis of bills and proposals in favor of harmonization to EU Acquis in general. The 8

repeating tendency of favoring the government’s bill has become non querier attitude of

committee reports. Opposition parties frequently declared that this partisan attitude and and

the Committee are dysfunctional and The EU Harmonization Committee does not fully serve

for Turkey’s accession to EU. 9

Buck to the trend, when reports ( also counter­statements) given to bills and proposals

are examined, CHP and HDP put forward parallel arguments relocating human rights, rule of

law and equality at the core of their analysis in the same direction of progressive reports

performed annually by European Commission to supervise Turkey’s accession to EU,

6 The founder of Republic of Turkey 7 More information can be retrieved through https://www.tbmm.gov.tr/develop/owa/ab_komisyonu_web.calismalar_ab2?p_kom_kod=401&p_islem=2 8 The need of another paper with in depth analysis is noticed. 9 SOZCU, 2015

whereas AKP with its majority in group interpret EU Acquis without pioneering its central

concerns defined as Copenhagen Criterias ( European Union, 2012).

Hereby, although three parties give support to Turkey’s accession to EU, they differ or

coincide in terms of their ideological orientation and therefore how they interpret EU norms

and values. The ruling party’s method of analysis of bills and proposals is mostly based on

neoliberal and neoconservative perspective fused with so­called Turkish Family discourse

(Acar, F., & Altunok, G., 2013) whereas CHP interiorizes social democracy and HDP

serves for fraternal left­ wing methodology. Shortly, shadowing out interests rather than

principles and policies for all is common for ruling party, while vice­versa comes to

forefront for CHP­ HDP. MHP differs completely than remainders with its state of

abstention to EU.

The way how parties are willing to interpret directives and focalize some directives and

ignoring others are main technical dilemma of Committee settled under GNAT functioning

for accession to EU. Another foremost problem is the number of bills and proposals that

committee delivers its report on harmonization to EU Acquis. According to GNAT

Statistics, The EU Harmonization Committee has only served for 20 out 421 laws in act in 10

four years of operation. The main opposition party CHP severely criticized this phenomenon

and appealed to President of GNAT, Cemil Cicek, stating that all incoming bills to parliament

and the proposals designed by MPs must be examined by EU Harmonization Committee if

Turkey puts its compassion and efforts to be full member of European Union. Besides,

Committee’s being subsidiary authority rather than principal one is another technical problem

frequently disclosed by main opposition party CHP. Furthermore, CHP MPs, in order to

overcome this technical problem, proposed a law about foundation of another committee

called “ Committee of EU Affairs” that will be the principal Committee that will evaluate all

bills and proposals in terms of their adaptation to EU Acquis, by propounding the inability of

EU Harmonization Committee on its fostering duty for Turkey’s accession to EU( Oran & al,

2012).

10 ANKARA­DHA ( 2015)

Shortly, the partisan attitude of Committee reports favoring government's attitude without

supervising and leading it with parallel to EU Acquis due to unbalanced toll of MPs within

Committee, the Committee’s subsidiary status on legislative mechanism and GNAT’s

selective attitude while asking opinion of EU Harmonization Committee about EU

Adaptation are three main problems faced by EU Harmonization Committee. The

Committee’s remaining weak in Turkey’s accession to EU and therefore its less

contribution than expected, despite all no positive challenge’s being taken to overcome

these problems are important technical details on legislation process of Turkey’s accession to

EU.

EU Harmonization Committee and Chapter 19

For Turkey’s accession to EU, Turkey has to close 35 Chapters that are compulsory for

enlargement negotiations. By June 2015, with recent updates, 13 out of 35 are opened, one

is opened and provisionally closed and the 21 Chapters are waiting to be opened. Social

Policy and Employment which is known as Chapter 19 is an very essential chapter that

includes standards in the areas of labour law, equality, anti­discrimination as well as health

and safety at work( European Union, 2013). In 4 years of operation, The EU Harmonization

Committee has delivered only 3 reports on 2 bills and 1 proposal namely:

1. The Protection of Family and Dynamic Population 1112

2. The Protection of Health and Safety at Work

3. Occupational Illnesses and Worker’s Health 13

1 2 3

Committee’s Report 2010/18/EU 2008/104/EC

89/391/EEC ILO 155 ILO 161 ILO 182

89/391/EEC

AKP’s Counter­Statement

NOT APPLICABLE NOT APPLICABLE NOT APPLICABLE

11 GNAT, 2015 12 This bill has not been legalized. 13 GNAT, 2012

CHP’s Counter­statement

ILO 183 92/85/EEC 2006/54/EC 89/391/EEC 2008/104/EC

APPLICABLE but no reference to EU Acquis.

89/391/EEC

HDP’s Counter­ Statement

Istanbul Convention CEDAW Convention ILO 183

NOT APPLICABLE NOT APPLICABLE

MHP’s Counter­Statement

NOT APPLICABLE NOT APPLICABLE NOT APPLICABLE

A Technical analysis of reports can be performed through word finding method ( seeking

directive numbers and codes) but it does not provide sufficient information about the

context mentioned in the report, still it is effective by putting forward to address which

directives are mentioned in the related articles. As stated above, AKP and MHP do not

provide any counter arguments while CHP provided reports ( counter­ statements) for 2 bills

and the proposal; HDP served only for one.

Unlike from written reports, the member of parliaments from opposition parties have

frequently stated the urgency of opening Chapter 19 at the plenary sessions of GNAT or gave

news releases. Some of these are exemplified:

Ayşe Eser Danışoğlu, the Member of Parliament for Istanbul, criticized government and

Ministry of EU affairs stating that: ( Danisoglu, 2015)

“ … we have not noticed any determination and will of government to open chapters

of public procurement, competition policy and social policy and employment. Turkey

insists to be pioneer country in Europe with two topics: Deadly work accidents and

income inequality, that are covered by Social Policy and Employment chapter…..”

CHP MPs Şafak Pavey, Ayşe Eser Danışoğlu, and Oğuz Oyan criticized government after

Soma Mining Disaster stressing the importance of opening Social Policy and Employment

chapter stating that: (Pavey & al 2014)

“ …. Turkey does not open Social Policy and Employment chapter, despite having no

obstacle for it . Id est, EU is not the obstacle to government, government hampers

European Union. Social Policy and Employment chapter is principal chapter of this

issue (referring Soma Mining Disaster). CHP calls Minister of EU Affairs to open this

chapter, we reiterate our call !....”

Umut Oran, MP of CHP for Istanbul, made a written statement to media asserting that: (

Oran, 2014)

“... EU calls Turkey to open Social Policy and Employment Chapter, Turkey blocks

out the call due to not fulfilling prerequisites….”

Mülkiye Birtane, MP of HDP, reiterates ILO Conventions about Occupational Health and

Safety at Work and calls government to open Social Policy and Employment Chapter. (

Birtane, 2014)

Analysis

Harmonization of national policies to EU Acquis in terms of Social Policies is urgent

necessity in Turkey. The construction of economic Turkey took its attention from political

agenda in a long term but without accompaniment of social interests. The balance between

economic and social objectives has never become primary issue of single ruling government

and it has not been matched yet. Political declarations of ruling party with no legally binding

effect on legislations have shown no developments on social policies. Social dialogue has

never become the issue that positively effects for open coordination. Theoretical frameworks

with actions plans were promoted however their assessments were hardly supervised and

frequently criticized by opposition parties. Also, the government had hardly identified its

position towards to form its status and attitude of Turkey towards its accession to EU with its

unstable, self contradictory discourses. Despite ruling party’s position, the question is

formulated in optimistic perspective by CHP and HDP, while undesirable bemusement had

become primary driving strategy of government. Living and working conditions of people

have become posterior to economic conditions. Rather than combatting social exclusion and

disparities, government prioritised economic matters. Same remark applied to people for

those who share same interests with the governing party. The inadequate degree of

organization for people at work places have publicly legitimized and internalized. The own

interpretation of social policies of government attributed to interests rather than public good

and it created new disparities among people. Particularly matters relating the unemployment,

recruitment stages and prerequisites, working conditions , precarity have altered their their

deficient forms into undesirable ones attributed and linked to neoliberal market economy.

Health and safety at work legislations were designed so as not to protect worker but the

capital. The amendment proposals generated by opposition parties have harshly rejected. The

equal pay for women and men for equal work disguised with minor regulations. Considerable

social debts are pushed to families, disguisedly to women’s shoulders. Social protection

mechanisms are not designed to serve for individual women , women intendedly forced into

families. With more the rising burden to women, the less raising standard of living

provided. Women has become veriest confronted agent whose life and choices have

become the bargainable issues of politics.

With or without giving reference to EU Acquis or norms, taking fundamental human

rights as the core; opposition parties ( CHP­ MHP­ HDP) have agreed upon the need to

promote standards of decent and dignified living for workers and their working conditions

protected and secured by ILO principles and legally liable courts. The essentiality of social

provisions frequently reiterated and stressed by EU Progress reports as well.

Twelve years of single party ruling with no or limited adoption of social provisions, the

impacts of social crisis associated with the polarization attitude has risen significantly, is also

starting to be felt very negatively by labours. Neo­liberally predominated discourse and

implementations towards workers are on the edge of sense of urgency due to fail of support

given to families by their rural locals. The more urbanized Turkey has brought the less

relations with rural settlements. The government’s rural policies also subsequently affected

standards of living of people settle in cities. The rural has not provided the necessary

supplies, therefore people are more forced to attain market, therefore mismatch of minimum

wage and market has become more visible. The opposition parties have compelled

government to set forth social provisions and protection mechanisms so as to move towards

social objectives of EU Acquis, urging it to open Social Policy and Employment chapter. The

need to open Social Policy chapter appeared visible and greater to public following Soma

and Ermenek Mining Disaster with 320 death tolls. People had begun be aware of their rights

secured by constitution and international agreements and considered all misapplications that

hinder vindicatory positions.

To sum up, during 24th term of GNAT, despite having a committee that evaluates

government bills and law proposals in favor of their adaptation to EU Acquis on the path of

accession so as to be full member EU, limited or no advances are experienced. Despite

Committee’s potential and capacity, regarding directives in terms of their minimum

standards and apply them on bills explicitly brought unchanged remainings or provided

limited changes. The ideological characteristic of EU Harmonization Committee

predominated by ruling ideology with 15 MPs have contributed limited or no competence to

Turkey’s accession to EU especially in terms of Social Policies. In the same manner, what’s

expressed in the Minister of EU Affairs were more or less same. No spectacular advance has

experienced during term 24th. On the contrary to positive expectations as it happens for all

progressive process, due to contradictory speeches of Prime Minister and Minister of EU

Affairs, on top of it the President’s, Turkey lag behind its state objective of being full

member of European Union.

References

Acar, F., & Altunok, G. (2013, December). The ‘politics of intimate’at the

intersection of neo­liberalism and neo­conservatism in contemporary Turkey.

InWomen's Studies International Forum (Vol. 41, pp. 14­23). Pergamon.

Avrupa Birliği Bakanlığı (2013, July 25 ). Retrieved from

http://www.ab.gov.tr/index.php?p=44&l=1

Ankara DHA. ( 2015, April 04). Meclis Tatile Girdi. Evrensel Gazetesi. Retrieved

from http://www.evrensel.net/haber/109610/meclis­tatile­girdi­2

Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi (2002). Parti Programı. Retrieved from

https://www.akparti.org.tr/site/akparti/parti­programi#bolum_

Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi ( 2015, January 15). AKP Brüksel Temsilciliği Açıldı.

Retrieved from

http://www.akparti.org.tr/site/haberler/ak­parti­bruksel­temsilciligi­acildi/70603#1

Birtane, M. ( 2014, May 16). Türkiye İşçi Güvenliği Sözleşmesini İmzalasın.

Retrieved from

http://www.hdp.org.tr/guncel/haberler/hdp­milletvekili­mulkiye­birtane­turkiye­isci­g

uvenligi­sozlesmesini­imzalasin/3236

Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi (2011). Parti Programı. Retrieved from

http://www.chp.org.tr/Assets/dosya/chp­program­2015­01­12.pdf . p.124

CHP Representation to EU. ( n.d.). Hakkımızda. Retrieved by

http://chp­avrupabirligi.org/

Danisoglu, E.A. ( 2013, December 12). 2015 yılı Avrupa Birliği Bakanlığı ve Türk

Akreditasyon Kurumu bütçeleri Konuşması. Retrieved from

https://www.tbmm.gov.tr/develop/owa/genel_kurul.cl_getir?pEid=35910

European Union. (n.d.). The Official Website of European Union. Retrieved from

http://europa.eu/index_en.htm

European Union. (n.d.). EU History. Retrieved from http://europa.eu/about­eu/eu­history/index_en.htm

European Union ( 2012, September 7) . Accession Criteria . Retrieved from

http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/policy/glossary/terms/accession­criteria_en.htm

European Union ( 2013, June 27). Chapters of Acquis. Retrieved from

http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/policy/conditions­membership/chapters­of­the­acquis

/index_en.htm

GNAT ( 2012, May). Occupational Illnesses and Worker’s Health. Retrieved from

/https://www.tbmm.gov.tr/sirasayi/donem24/yil01/ss277.pdf p.29

GNAT ( 2015, January). The Protection of Family and Dynamic Population.

Retrieved by https://www.tbmm.gov.tr/sirasayi/donem24/yil01/ss711.pdf pg.29 ­54

Milliyetçi Hareket Partisi ( 2010). Avrupa Birliği ve Türkiye. Retrieved from www.mhp.org.tr%2Fusr_img%2F_mhp2007%2Ffiles%2Fraporlar%2Favrupabirligi%2Fab_ve_tu

rkiye_aralik_2010.doc

Pavey, Ş., Danisoglu, E.A., Oyan, O. (2014, May 26). TBMM Basın Açıklaması.

Retrieved from

http://ayseeserdanisoglu.blogspot.com.tr/search?updated­max=2014­05­29T13:54:00

%2B03:00&max­results=2&start=10&by­date=false

Sözcü (2015, March 19). AB Toplantısında AKP Yalnız Kaldı. SÖZCÜ Gazetesi

Retrieved by

http://www.sozcu.com.tr/2015/gunun­icinden/uc­partiden­ortak­protesto­777246/

The Ministry of EU Affairs ( 2007, April 06). History of Turkey­ EU Relations.

Retrieved from http://www.ab.gov.tr/index.php?p=111&l=2

The Grand National Assembly of Turkey (n.d.). The EU Harmonization Committee.

Retrieved from https://www.tbmm.gov.tr/komisyon/abuyum/

The Grand National Assembly of Turkey (n.d.). Komisyonun Raporunu Verdiği

Tasarı ve Teklifler. Retrieved from

https://www.tbmm.gov.tr/develop/owa/ab_komisyonu_web.calismalar_ab2?p_kom_k

od=401&p_islem=2

Oran,U., Danisoglu, E.A., Oyan, O. ( 2012, December 4). Avrupa Birliği İşleri

Komisyonu Kuruluş Kanunu Teklifi. Retrieved from

http://tbmm.chp.org.tr/calisma.aspx?Tip=1&ID=134

Oran, U. ( 2014, May 18). AB iş Güvenliği İle İlgili 19. Faslın Açılmasını İstiyor.

Zete Gazetesi. Retrieved from

http://zete.com/chpli­oran­ab­is­guvenligiyle­ilgili­19­faslin­acilmasini­istiyor­akp­ya

nasmiyor/

Wallace, H., Pollack, M. A., & Young, A. R. (Eds.). (2010). Policy­making in the

European Union. Oxford university press.