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.
Top Related