Mustafa Yıldız, who served for years as an inspector in municipalities run by the Kurdish political movement and authored the book Municipalities under Trustees Deprived of Law, spoke to ANF about the peace process and its connection to the importance of local administrations. The first part of this interview can be read here.
What steps can be taken to balance strengthened local administrations with central government?
When we consider what has recently happened to municipalities run by the CHP, the first step toward strengthening local administrations across the country must be for the nation to truly meet democracy. According to Article 90 of the Constitution, international conventions have the force of law. Yet the central government does not comply with the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), established under the European Convention on Human Rights, nor with articles of the European Charter of Local Self-Government to which it has not placed any reservations. Under such conditions, there is no need for new steps to establish balance, because this balance has already been guaranteed by the constitution and international agreements.
However, unless the central government, which disregards existing regulations, and judicial oversight bodies, which have turned into the sword of Damocles, correct their current state, no new regulation will serve any purpose.
Consider this: a municipality under trustee administration, plunged into lawlessness and known for the largest cases of corruption and misconduct in Turkey’s history, is inspected by officials from the Ministry of Interior. In the 385-page report they produce, not a single irregularity is mentioned. Instead, they recommend that the practices of the municipality they inspected should serve as a model for the entire country. These inspectors trample on existing legal regulations. Moreover, trustee mayors accused and even tried for corruption are later appointed as chief inspectors after leaving office.
What are your practical proposals to reduce political pressure and judicial interference on local administrations?
If we want to build the future properly, we must not forget that in a democratic country the main source of legality is the Constitution. The Constitution must contain rules that everyone can clearly understand, that lead to the same conclusions when read by both the central government and ordinary citizens, and that are respected by all. It must be explicitly stated that constitutional provisions are fundamental legal rules binding not only on the legislative and judicial branches and individuals, but also on the executive and administrative authorities.
In this context, the Grand National Assembly of Turkey must first be legally strengthened in order to create a government that believes in the democratic republic and democratic principles. The executive, legislative, and judicial branches must be strictly separated. The authority to select members of higher judicial bodies should be given solely to the legislative and judicial branches. The executive’s authority over judicial appointments must be completely removed. To prevent the recurrence of trustee practices or similar interventions, the constitutional articles concerning local administrations must be rewritten in a way that everyone can understand.
For example, Article 127 of the Constitution could be restructured as follows: “Each local administration is an autonomous unit formed within its boundaries to meet the common needs of the local people, based on the principle of local autonomy, with its founding principles and duties defined by law, and its decision-making bodies elected by voters as set out in the electoral law. The establishment, duties, and powers of local administrations shall be regulated by law in accordance with the principle of decentralization and with the European Charter of Local Self-Government, which has also been approved by our legislative body.”
Elected mayors must work in coordination with provincial governors, but it must be clearly stated that governors are not superiors of mayors. It should also be written in a way that everyone can understand that any objections to the election of local administrators and the loss of their positions can only be decided by judicial rulings.
If a local official is investigated or prosecuted for an offense related to their duties, the investigation must be concluded within 90 days. During this period, the elected mayor should be temporarily removed and replaced by a deputy chosen by the municipal council. After three months, depending on the court’s decision, the mayor or council member would either return to duty or be permanently dismissed, with the council electing a new mayor until the next elections. Because appointing substitutes for dismissed elected officials by guardianship authorities contradicts the very essence of local autonomy, this practice is both democratically illegitimate and legally problematic.
Financial audits and final approvals of local administrations should be conducted by the Court of Accounts on behalf of the TBMM, while guidance audits should be carried out by the Ministry of Environment and Urbanization. Oversight through guardianship by the central government should be abolished, as municipalities are already subject to annual oversight by their own councils.
When complaints about local administrations are received from the public or other institutions, the central government should assign inspectors and submit their reports to the relevant ministry. If administrative action is needed, the report should be sent to the municipal council, the body authorized to make decisions. If judicial action is required, the report should be submitted to the courts. Local administrations should have the authority to draft their own bylaws and regulations with the approval of their elected councils, provided they are not in conflict with the constitution or laws.
The central government must avoid making regulations that go as far as determining how many engineers a metropolitan municipality should employ. For example, graduates of the School of Local Government cannot be employed as contracted civil servants in municipalities because the central government has not included this profession in its approved list. Municipalities should determine the number and qualifications of their personnel themselves. It seems that Turkey has placed a reservation in the European Charter of Local Self-Government regarding such matters.
Constitutional changes must also review laws to ensure that responsibilities assigned to local administrations are not taken back by the central government. For example, although metropolitan municipalities are responsible for planning transportation within their borders, they lack enforcement powers. This needs to be clarified. A case in point is the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality’s attempt to increase the number of taxis, which was obstructed because the central government appointed new members to the Transport Coordination Center (UKOME), undermining the municipality’s decision-making capacity.
These kinds of arrangements have gone far beyond guardianship oversight, creating centralization at the local level and narrowing the powers of municipalities. This issue must be addressed in constitutional amendments.
In fact, during the Ministry of Interior’s 2012 discussions on the Metropolitan Municipality Draft Law, we proposed closing not only provincial councils but also municipal councils and creating city councils with their own budgets and oversight mechanisms. This would have minimized guardianship oversight, which has caused much controversy. At the time, however, the proposal was rejected. Looking at today’s debates about a democratic republic, this step has become necessary.
In conclusion, both constitutional amendments and changes to Laws No. 5393 and 5216 will be critical. However, unless Turkey lifts its reservations to the European Charter of Local Self-Government and incorporates the essence of the Charter into its constitution and laws, none of these changes will be sufficient to prevent new trustee appointments three years later.
As Kurds, in this process we do not want to shake the hand of the state, but the hand of democracy, equality, and freedom. We extend our hand not to become a state, but to build a democratic and free society. The process must be crowned with a democratic republic clothed in universal law and legitimate in the eyes of the people, so that we can live in a new Turkey. This new Turkey must be a country where justice, equality, and freedom prevail, where no one is marginalized, and where people can live in happiness.
I believe this is also what Mr. Abdullah Öcalan expects from the process.