YSK decisions that affect democracy and trigger political conflicts

I can say that its independence and impartiality have been damaged from time to time.

Looking at recent times, there are many Supreme Election Council (YSK) decisions that have deeply affected democratic life and simultaneously led to very intense political conflicts.

The acceptance of unstamped ballots despite the clear provision of the law, the acceptance of one ballot in the same envelope as invalid while others were accepted as valid during the 2019 Local Government Elections, and the acceptance of the ruling party's objections while rejecting opposition parties' objections of the same nature are the most typical examples of this.

Furthermore, the fact that the Supreme Election Council acted like a high court to resolve the issue of whether the president could be a candidate for a third time—a matter that should have been resolved by a judicial decision—and paved the way for the president to be elected for a third term is a subject that is highly debated in legal circles.

However, there is one issue where the public is misinformed and the Supreme Election Council is being treated unfairly.

Regarding the practice of appointing trustees (kayyum), people ask why the Supreme Election Council approves the participation of a person in an election when it knows they cannot be a mayor.

Article 9 of Law No. 2972 on Local Administrations and Neighborhood Headmen and Council of Elders Elections states that every Turkish citizen who has reached the age of eighteen can become a Metropolitan Mayor, Mayor, or Municipal Council member, provided they do not carry the disqualifications listed in Article 11 of the Parliamentary Election Law No. 2839.

Article 11 of the Parliamentary Election Law No. 2839 stipulates that it is not those under investigation for the crimes listed in the article, but those who have been convicted and whose conviction has become final, who cannot be elected as members of parliament, and by extension, as metropolitan mayors, mayors, or municipal council members due to the reference made by Law No. 2972.

In clearer terms, the Supreme Election Council, when examining eligibility for election, does not check whether there is an investigation or prosecution against a candidate, but rather examines whether there is a criminal record indicating the existence of a final conviction to decide whether the person can be a candidate.

In this situation, it is not the duty of the Supreme Election Council to investigate candidates who are under investigation or to decide whether they can be candidates instead of those who have convictions, contrary to clear legal regulations.

For the reasons explained, the Supreme Election Council is not at fault regarding the government's trustee practices and the appointment of an administrative official as a trustee instead of a deputy mayor chosen by the municipal council from among its own members—thereby ignoring the will of the people—to replace mayors whose duties were terminated despite constitutional and legal regulations.