Skip to main content

Reviving Death Penalty

Turkey is again discussing bringing back capital punishment to Turkish Penal System. This time both Justice and Development Party (AKP) and Nationalist Party (MHP) are determined to legalise constitutional change in the nearest future without considering all consequences of this decision. Both parties motivated with nationalist sentiments that finds considerable support from Turkish Society. Their political action stirs up with the feeling of taking revenge from Kurdistan Workers Party and Gulenist Network Leaders. In consideration of the victims who suffered from both organisations actions, this decision seems fair enough by majority of Turkish people. On the other hand, cost and benefit calculation of reinstating death penalty after ten years is full of questions. 

If both political parties political stance towards the application of death penalty is taken into consideration, there is a mixed picture. As for AKP, in its early years (before being government party) they were against lifting capital punishment from constitution. However, when they were in power, they lifted application of death penalty for all circumstances, in order to fulfil one of the EU requirements. Since then, despite bringing back death penalty was voiced by many AKP politicians on election times, this has never happened so far. Majority of the people in Turkey have not taken seriously this decision in consideration of its political consequences such as drawing back Turkey's democratic progress and deteriorating its relations with Western World. 

Similar to AKP, MHP has also played a vital role on revoking capital punishment from constitution. When MHP was coalition partner between 1999-2002, its leader Devlet Bahceli was one of the cabinet members who signed this constitutional change. Even though, in that version death penalty did not revoke for terror crimes, MHP has always been accused by many nationalist circles as well as AKP politicians for taking first steps of removing death penalty from Turkish Penal System and liberating terrorist organisation members from death.  

Despite both parties inconsistent political manoeuvres, reinstating capital punishment to Turkish Penal System and execution of it retrospectively carry irreparable damages to Turkey's credibility in international politics.

First and foremost dangerous consequence of this decision, Turkey will be remembered as a country where rule of law principle no more exist. Execution of death penalty retrospectively will be seen as an indicator by many foreigners that Turkish Government can aggravate individual freedoms any time they want and execute disadvantageous laws despite previous legislation is in favour of beneficiaries or suspects. This choice will make Turkey unreliable country on the eyes of foreign politicians who would like to collaborate with Turkish Authorities and also on foreign investors who are seeking to make foreign direct investment to Turkey. In this circumstances, they will be hesitant to work with Turkey because Turkish Law System will be perceived untrustworthy both cooperation and making business. This will unfortunately undermine Turkey's efforts on extradition of terror suspects from Western Countries and create fear on foreign investors who intent to bring their money to Turkey.

Secondly, execution of death penalty retrospectively carrying risks of suspension of Turkey's membership in Council of Europe and NATO. Furthermore, this decision will deteriorate Turkey's long term relations with the EU. All these international organisations require its members to act in line with rule law principles and ask them to preserve their higher democratic standards, not the other way around. If Turkey reinstates death penalty after ten years, this will be seen as a backsliding for Turkey's democratic progress. All these organisations will leave Turkey alone until its rule of law reliability gets back on track. This may lead Turkey to seek new international partners apart from Western World (most possibly Shanghai Cooperation Organisation) who have no concerns or leverage on application of democratic principles in Turkey. Moreover, by the time Turkey alienated from democratic world, fundamental rights of Turkish citizens will be under risk. Ironically, life will be much tougher for ordinary people in comparison to the years when AKP has provided them the opportunity to leave in more free country.

If both scenarios take place in Turkey, AKP government will be responsible for this failure and MHP will walk away while AKP struggling with the challenges brought by this decision. Moreover, in the volatile political environment of Turkey, there is no certainty about who will be on power in a decade. If Turkey will govern by an authoritarian government in the near future, there is no guarantee for all politicians to be victim of death penalty. Therefore, reviving death penalty must be reconsidered for the sake of not only Turkey's political future but also its political actors.

Along with these reasons, Turkish political history is full of embarrassment stories of execution of politicians and political figures such as Adnan Menderes, Deniz Gezmiş and so on. These people were executed for political reasons and today their executions are considered as a huge desperate mistake. Furthermore, in recent years Ergenekon and Sledgehammer cases have proved that decisions of Turkish Judiciary is not always reliable. If death penalty was in force during these cases, most probably many innocent Turkish Army members were executed relying on fabricated evidences. This is another reason why AKP and MHP politicians should be hesitant to bring back capital punishment. They should question whether Turkish Judiciary is mature enough to give right decisions while execution of death penalty

Last but not least, President Erdogan desires to see death penalty for religious reasons. In his latest statement, he mentioned that capital punishment should prevail in Turkish Penal System as an Allah order. However, if the Holy Quran Ayah's taken into consideration, forgiving someone from his/her death penalty is emphasised as a better option for the victim's relatives and also believers. In this sense, bringing back death penalty necessitates a trial process in which victim's and victim's relatives consent is needed for execution of death penalty. In the absence of this judicial procedure, reinstating death penalty will not fulfil Allah's order. Also, the Quran do not clearly authorise state institutions to execute death penalty for political reasons except in time of war.

In view of Turkey's socio-political conditions, execution of capital punishment towards the terrorists will not ease sorrow of victim's or their relatives. On the contrary, reinstating death penalty will bring new political challenges to Turkey and perhaps will create new sorrows if innocent people are executed because of mistrials. Therefore, it would be wise both AKP and MHP politicians to think once again whether reinstating death penalty is necessary for brighter future of Turkey.  Also, they should reconsider are they ready to share ethical burden if any judge decides mistakenly execution of an innocent suspect.















Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Erdogan the Great vs. a New Gordion Knot

Gordion Knot is an ancient proverbial term that is commonly used to describe solving a complex problem by coercive action. According to the ancient story, when Alexander the Great has marched into the Phrygian capital of Gordium he found a chariot belongs to the ancestral father of the city, Gordius. The yoke of the wagon was tied with a knot with its hidden end and who could unravel the knot is thought to be the conqueror of the Asia. After several attempts to untie the knot, Alexander sliced the knot instead of patiently unravelling it and he carried on his military expedition. The story does not tell us how Alexander’s pragmatic approach has influenced the people in Gordium.  However, in the contemporary Turkish politics Turkey is facing with a new Gordion Knot that needs to be untied patiently.  This new Gordion Knot was created by Gulenists since 1970’s by diffusing all Turkish Governmental Institutions using different immoral methods. According to recent trials, Gulenis

Sacrificing Improvement of Institutional Capacity to Loyalty

Institutional capacity is a technical term that is commonly used by political scientists to emphasize ability of state institutions to achieve objectives, adapt required reforms, solve problems or accommodate with new political status quo. Having a strong institutional capacity is very important for politicians to transform states because in the absence of institutional capacity their innovative ideas will not work due to absence of people who can implement these ideas. Analogically, if political elites considered as brain, absence of institutional capacity means having no hands to implement brain orders.  Since 2002 after Justice and Development Party (AKP) has become the government party, institutional capacity has always been a problem for Turkey. The major reason behind this problem was AKP did not prefer a merit based human resources system during these years. Instead, they relied on selection of state officials for their ideology or identity.  During the first years of

Turkey: Country of Political Contradictions

Being a politician has always been a tough task in Turkey. If you are a politician who is narrow-minded, having pretentious manner on the subjects that you have been advised not to carry on them or who do not understand Turkey's political dynamics, this country's political environment sometimes oblige you to act on the contrary to your beliefs and arguments.  This fault in not only belong to politicians, but also their advisers share responsibility as much as their superiors. If politicians surrounded by advisers who only consider their self-interest and gives priority to keep their position secure or praise politician no matter how much their decision is wrong, again politicians most likely to see similar unfortunate experience.  In recent Turkish political history, there are plenty of examples involving Turkish politicians who are upended with their fundamental arguments. Even though we do not have enough data to reveal what was the exact reason of their contradict