Report on the violations of human rights before and after the election on 29 March 2009

HRFTHuman Rights Foundation of Turkey ’s Report on the violations of human rights before and after the election on 29 March 2009

Introduction

In the local elections which were held on 29 March 2009 voters, depending on where they live, citizens cast up to five votes in the elections. Every electorate voted for the neighbourhood official (muhtar), a district mayor, a district municipal council and a province municipal council. Those living in one of the sixteen largest cities also voted for a metropolitan municipality mayor.

The elections for the local administrations were finalised in a mood of “general elections” and in a contentious manner. These elections have been considered by most a kind of referendum on current political issues far beyond local themes. It appeared to be so several months before the elections when Prime Minister Erdoğan declared his wish to “definitely” gain the elections in municipalities such as Diyarbakır, Tunceli and İzmir. But there are few factors that distinguished the elections in 2009 from previous ones.

The most important of these factors was the reported violations of human rights before and after election day which can not be compared with the previous elections. As it can be seen from the evaluations below the violations of right to life is worrisome: 26 people were killed and 370 people were wounded in the incidents before and after election day.

One of the factors that differentiate the recent local election from previous ones is the amendments made to the laws concerning local governments before the elections respectively in 2004 and 2005. Local elections in 2009 were the first election after these amendments (i.e. Law of Metropolitan Municipalities (No. 5216), Law of Municipalities (No. 5393), and Law of Special Administration of Provinces (No. 5302).

Especially the amendment in Law of Special Administration of Provinces (No. 5302), which can be qualified as a “reform”, made the elections in 2009 more “violent”.

Before the amendment in 2005 Specialised Administrations of Provinces had little authority with sparse resources. While Provincial General Assemblies had been convening twice a year in the presidency of governors before the amendment in 2005, they began to elect their own president and became a decision making organ with important authority. Especially after the authority of the Directorate for the Service for Villages was handed over to the Specialised Administrations of Provinces, the mechanisms of creating rants and distributing it were strengthened. By implication all these new advancements caused a boom in the number of the candidates to be elected to Provincial General Assemblies and fierce competition between them.

Another factor was the high level of concerns for the reliability of the results of the elections. The number of people who votes in the referendum for the amendment of the constitution on 21 October 2007 was 42,629,733 . The High Council for Elections stated on 27 November 2008 that 48,265,644 people were going to vote in the local elections on 29 March 2009 according to the new voter registry based on the Address Recording System . Due to objections, the list of electorates was reconsidered and the number of the electorates was declared as 48,006,650 . Apart from the two different numbers that were declared by the High Council for Elections, approximately six million new voters that were emerged between the two elections was a serious source of concern .

Another reason to worry about the reliability of the results of the elections is the practices of the government of the Justice and Development Party (AKPJustice and Development Party ) has been distributing cash and goods such as refrigerators, furniture, coal etc. which can be interpreted as an attempt to buy votes despite the ban decision of the High Council for Election. The Justice and Development Party tried to justify this act with the “necessities of social state”. The distribution of goods is not only a misappropriation of public resources but also a mortgage on the will of voters.

Meanwhile the voters were indirectly threatened by the ministers in their election activities and this also raised the tension of the election process. The first step which was taken by Mehmet Ali Şahin, the Minister of Justice caused intense criticism. The minister declared at the opening of an election office in Antalya Province that the local governments which oppose their government could not have their projects approved by Ankara, and this is the reality of Turkey. He also added that “our problems can be solved more easily if the local governments would be in peace with his people, their government and the state” .

Last but not least, a reason for the high tension in the election process is the style of making politics that was adopted by AKP. Above all Prime Minister Erdoğan’s nervous and strained manner during the election campaign and his party’s “either love or leave” discourse profoundly affected the election process. AKP went on using this approach after the elections and claimed that AKP members were under coercion in the provinces in which DTP won the elections and tried to shadow the results of the election.

Violations due to the local elections on 29 March 2009

The number of human rights violations before, during and after the local elections on 29 March 2009 was so high that it can not be compared with the previous elections. Attacks on right to life, personal integrity, freedom of expression, freedom of organisation and meeting prevent the embodiment of democracy at the local level which is the main aim of the elections.

Killed - 26

Wounded - 370

Detention - 99

Arrestment - 79

According to the data gathered by the documentation centre of the Human Rights Foundation of Turkey (HRFT) 26 people were killed and 370 people were wounded before and after the local elections. Ninty-nine people were detained and 79 of them were arrested in connection with these incidents.

Attacks on party buildings and election offices of the candidates began with the acceleration of election activities approximately two months before the elections. Attacks on the Democratic Society Party were ranked in priority. Forty-five attacks were made against DTP, nearly twice the number of all the attacks on other parties.

DTP - 45

AKP - 22

CHPRepublican People's Party - 15

MHPNationalist Movement Party - 7

others - 7

total - 95

Moreover the attacks on DTP were intensified in the western provinces of Turkey: Only ten out of the 45 attacks were made in the eastern provinces -Erzurum (3), Van, Bingöl, Gaziantep, Bitlis, Kahramanmaraş, Elazığ, Siirt. All the others -35 attacks- were conducted in the western provinces: İstanbul (10), Mersin (6), İzmir (5), Ankara (4), Manisa (3), Bursa (3), Muğla, Yalova, Antalya, Tekirdağ. If we take into account that DTP can not be seen as a political adversary in the western part of Turkey, these attacks become a matter of concern.

Just like the attacks on DTP, the attacks on the Justice and Development Party were intensified in the western part of Turkey. Whereas AKP was targeted only twice in the eastern provinces –in Diyarbakir Province- 20 attacks on AKP were made in the western provinces: İstanbul (5), İzmir (3), Ankara (2), Adana (2), Kocaeli (2), Hatay (2), Düzce (2), Sakarya, Konya. It is noteworthy that the attacks on AKP in western provinces disprove the claims of the authorities of AKP that they were coerced in the eastern provinces.

Methods used in the attacks

Most of the attacks were done by throwing stones, implying that the attacks were mostly spontaneous in character and that Turkish political life was not so polarised yet that the attacks were “violent”.