Kriter > Dosya |

The Outcomes of the State of Emergency


On July 15, Turkey was able to thwart a coup attempt carried out by coup plotters controlled by FETÖ (Gülenist Terrorist Organization) with the leadership of the President of the Republic of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and by citizens standing up for the will of their nation. When taken into account, the various connections and cell formations of the coup plotters can cause harm to the country in many aspects.

The Outcomes of the State of Emergency

On July 15, Turkey was able to thwart a coup attempt carried out by coup plotters controlled by FETÖ (Gülenist Terrorist Organization) with the leadership of the President of the Republic of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and by citizens standing up for the will of their nation. When taken into account, the various connections and cell formations of the coup plotters can cause harm to the country in many aspects. Likewise, taking the escape of some of the coup plotters and intel data regarding assassins being present within the country into consideration, the extraordinary atmosphere caused by the coup plotters continues to be prevalent. One may also bring up potential provocations that may be initiated by coup plotters in the current situation. Because these types of actions carry the risk of giving coup plotters the opportunity to turn members of society against one another, the plotters should have been stopped beforehand. In a platform where threats of this kind are widespread, a declaration of a state of emergency in accordance with President Erdoğan and the principles of the Constitution under the AK Party was seen as necessary. While the MHP supported the proposal, the CHP and HDP voted otherwise.

The Necessity for a State of Emergency

There are three requirements listed in the Constitution for the declaration of a state of emergency, only one of which is considered necessary for this declaration.

  1. The emergence of serious indications of widespread acts of violence in order to get rid of the structure of a free democracy founded by the Constitution: The warrant of free democracy is the President whom is elected by the democratically established Turkish Grand National Assembly, the government, and the general public.
  2. The emergence of serious indications of widespread acts of violence in order to dispose of fundamental rights and liberties: Running over citizens with tanks, opening fire from helicopters, and destroying police forces with bombs dropped from planes are all proof that this situation is prevalent.
  3. Serious disruption of public order due to violence: The two articles mentioned above are also proof that this requirement has been met.

While Article 120 of the Constitution considers the actualization, or even serious indication of a possible actualization, of only one of these three requirements sufficient for the declaration of a state of emergency; sadly, all three requirements were carried out by FETÖ’s coup attempt. In the voting for an official document of the declaration of a state of emergency, 346 of the 461 deputies which participated voted for the acceptance of the declaration, proving its necessity. In such a situation, debate regarding the necessity of the declaration of a state of emergency should be approached with suspicion.

Legal Order During a State of Emergency

The main aspect which separates a state of emergency from a normal state is the regime of statutory decrees issued by the Council of Ministers gathered under the chairmanship of the Presidency during the state of emergency. However, the Constitution also applies restrictions to these decrees. First of all, these statutory decrees can only be issued during the state of emergency. Secondly, statutory decrees of the state of emergency can only contain topics necessitated by the state of emergency. Third and most importantly, it is obligatory that these decrees are published in the Official Gazette and submitted for approval by the Turkish Grand National Assembly.

This State is Not Like Any Other State

The name of the state of emergency itself is enough to make citizens worried. In this case, old memories of experiences of previous states of emergency come to mind. The worry that the citizens feel derives more from past implementations. However, the following statement by Prime Minister Binali Yıldırım during his speech at the Turkish Grand National Assembly distinguishes the current state of emergency from the previous state of emergencies: “With the decision made, the state declares a state of emergency not on the nation but upon itself.” The state mechanism is in need of making quick decisions more than ever before compared to other matters. It can only meet this need through the state of emergency, whose requirements for its declaration have been met. The continuation of the magnitude of the threat to the country caused by the coup plotters that are part of the Gülenist Terror Organization (FETÖ) is also what makes this necessary. Differing from martial law, the initiative of the state of emergency will continue to be in the hands of civilians, and measures will be able to be taken to prevent the need of another state of emergency with the authorization carried out within constitutional restrictions. The statements regarding keeping the period of the state of emergency short and the state declaring the state of emergency not on the citizens but upon itself will help create a more democratic Turkey 90 days from now.

 

What the State of Emergency Process Tells Us

Even though all three of the requirements mentioned above have been met, the fact that the declaration of a state of emergency was limited to three months tells a lot. The Constitution states that the declaration of a state of emergency should not exceed six months. Despite this, by also getting the opinion of the National Security Council, the Council of Ministers gathered under the chairmanship of the Presidency limited this period to three months. Although the President has said in one of his statements that this period could be extended if necessary, keeping the period limited to three months from the start shows the effort to go back to rule of law as soon as possible. In this case, any kind of quick judgment regarding the state of emergency should not disregard the President and the government’s desire to quickly recover from the current state. The extension of this period is subjected to a similar process as the declaration of a state of emergency and can be extended each time with the request of the Council of Ministers, on the condition of not surpassing four months.

Fundamental Rights and Liberties in the State of Emergency

There are certain limitations for the restriction or suspension of fundamental rights and liberties even during a state of emergency. Firstly, precautions against the securities of fundamental rights and liberties as stipulated in the Constitution can only be taken when necessary. Therefore, the principle of moderation is prevalent here.

When taking the statements made by the President and the government into consideration, the chances of the citizens being directly affected by the state of emergency, the restriction of fundamental rights and liberties in a way which is against the principle of moderation, and any adjustment that may breach Article 15 of the Constitution are quite low. Undoubtedly, any kind of regulation made in this manner will be reversed as soon as it is detected.

 


Etiketler »  

Veri politikasındaki amaçlarla sınırlı ve mevzuata uygun şekilde çerez konumlandırmaktayız. Detaylar için "veri politikamızı" inceleyebilirsiniz. Daha fazlası