Oversight

The Turkish Language Association defines oversight (denetim) as “examining whether a task is performed correctly and in accordance with its methods.”

The entry into force of the 1961 Constitution marked a contemporary era regarding oversight. With the 1961 Constitution, the principles of the “rule of law” and a “state governed by the rule of law,” as well as the requirement that all acts and actions of the administration be subject to judicial review, were placed under constitutional guarantee.

Following these principles and rules, which were renewed with the 1982 Constitution, oversight gained great importance and weight in Turkish public administration.

According to the legal status of oversight bodies, oversight is divided into three categories: oversight units affiliated with the legislative, judicial, and executive branches.

Since November 2002, when the AKP came to power, oversight has become increasingly dysfunctional and biased. Article 98 of the Constitution states that the Grand National Assembly of Turkey (TBMM) shall exercise its power of oversight through means such as parliamentary questions, parliamentary inquiries, general debates, interpellations, and parliamentary investigations. However, this oversight power is blocked by the parliamentary majority of the AKP and MHP, and it is not possible to speak of this power being exercised.

Questions submitted by the opposition are not answered, or if they are, they are far from satisfactory. The decisions of the Court of Accounts (Sayıştay), which is tasked with auditing the revenues, expenditures, and assets of general and annexed budget administrations and institutions specified by law as being subject to its audit on behalf of the TBMM, have been reduced to mere advisory opinions lacking enforcement power.

Decisions of the Constitutional Court and administrative courts are generally not complied with. It is also not always possible to speak of effective judicial oversight by the Constitutional Court.

Administrative oversight, carried out by inspection and audit boards within the organizational structure of the Presidency, ministries, and other public institutions and organizations, is in the most inadequate state.

Inspection and audit institutions, which previously possessed a partially autonomous structure, have become a convenient tool in the hands of the government and have been transformed into boards that cannot perform their duties due to political influence or that act with bias.

The types of oversight mentioned above are, in slang terms, the “brakes of the state.”

Transparent administrations that have nothing to hide continuously improve their oversight systems and utilize them to the fullest extent.

Weakness in oversight leads to major problems both in the state and in society.

The recent “newborn gang” incident reflected in the public eye, the number of immigrants with unknown addresses, the lack of public order, and corruption clearly show the critical point we have reached due to a lack of oversight.

While municipalities belonging to the ruling party are not subjected to any oversight regarding allegations of irregularities and corruption reported in the press, the fact that municipalities belonging to the opposition face intense audits proves how the oversight system has been made biased.

The special trial procedure, introduced to ensure that public services are carried out regularly and properly by keeping civil servants free from all kinds of fear and anxiety while performing their duties, is also applied with bias in the bureaucracy, just like oversight.

While civil servants close to the government who commit crimes are not subjected to any prosecution, non-partisan civil servants are faced with various sanctions on flimsy excuses. The oversight system has been turned into a system that punishes civil servants and public officials who disagree with the government or engage in behavior not approved by the government.

The disciplinary investigation launched against the lieutenants who shouted “We are the soldiers of Mustafa Kemal” at their graduation ceremony and were celebrating their graduation is the most typical example of this.

In summary, without an effective and impartial oversight system, it is impossible to succeed in the fight against corruption and to ensure social peace and tranquility.