Observing the Turkish Election

Nicolas Rea

November 7, 2002

(Our group, which was sent by the Kurdish community in the UK consisted of 6 members; 3 from Wales, 2 from England and one from Scotland)

Hywel Williams MP for Plaid Cymru Eilian Williams, Solicitor, Plaid Cymru member from Anglesey Owen Williams, School Inspector, Plaid Cymru member from Anglesey Andy Murie, Assistant to Lloyd Quinan Scottish Nationalist MSP Stewart Hemsley, Chair, Pax Christi Nicolas Rea, Labour back bench Peer

We flew from Heathrow on Turkish Airlines on the morning of 1 November, arriving at Diyarbakir in time for a late evening meal. We had 4 spare hours en route in which to look at central Istanbul, which had a festive air with streamers and festoons of flags for all the political parties (16 were standing) strung across the streets. At Diyarbakir we were met at the airport by Nezjna, one of our interpreters, an archaeology graduate, aged 22 but who seemed even younger. On the next day - the day before the election - we met our other more experienced interpreter, Ibrahim, a teacher of English from Siirt, aged 25 who has acted as an interpreter/guide for visiting archaeological tours. The Diyarbakir branch of IHD (The Human Rights Association) deployed the different groups of observers from individual countries and the European Parliament into different districts of the province - or Vilayet. There were about twelve groups in all who had been invited by DEHAP as observers. There were also official delegations from The Council of Europe and the OSCE but these were based in other centers. After some hiccups due to delayed arrival of our minibus we set off northwards to Kocakoye, a small town, about 60 km north of Diyarbakir. While we had been waiting in Diyarbakir several military jeeps carrying 3 – 4 armed jandarma passed in front of the hotel. On the way to Kocakoye we were overtaken by a turreted armored car with a heavy machine gun.

At Kocakoye we were very warmly welcomed by 20 - 30 DEHAP members at their HQ. Everybody had to shake hands, a ritual, which was repeated wherever; we went, followed by copious glasses of tea brought out on a tray. We asked how we could best help and they said we should go out to any villages where they had heard of irregularities or interference, starting early (polling starts at 6am andfinishes at 3pm) They told us that in Kocakoye district, of the 1.400 people eligible to register for the first time since the 1999 election, 500 had not done so in the two weeks allowed after the election was announced; (“working too late” etc. but possibly indicating a degree of apathy/cynicism about the political process?) Of the 900 who did register 121 (13.5 %) either received voting cards with wrong names on them or did not receive one because the address was wrong. This meant that these people could not vote since the voting cards arrived only 2 days before the election, allowing no time to rectify the errors. This rate of error or greater was reported at all the centers we visited, as well as in Diyarbakir itself where the error rate was said to have approached 20%: 100,000 wrong addresses out of a 629 000 electorate and 29 000 missing altogether. We were also told by DEHAP officials in Diyarbakir that the error rate was also high in the suburbs of Istanbul and other Western cities where there was a high Kurdish population. We had no means of checking whether there was also a high error rate in other areas. At Kooky we saw an example of a register including errors and took a photocopy of a page. Whether these errors were deliberate or a computer error was difficult to tell.

After kebabs in a small café courtyard - outside in November- costing less than £2 each - 4 million Turkish lira. (Ibrahim paid this and was repaid by us because, as visitors the owner would have been embarrassed to take money from us directly). From Kocakoye we went at our request on a detour to Tepecik, a village of some 90 houses. In 1993 all of them had been systematically destroyed by tanks and the population rendered homeless because of a refusal to provide “village guards”. The two villages on either side had been spared, presumably because they had complied, probably under duress.

Our next stop was Hani, a small town on the edge of some low arid mountains. It was dark by the time we arrived. Just before entering the town we were stopped at a Jandarma checkpoint and our passports closely scrutinized for 15-20 mins before we were allowed to pass - by no means the last time this was to happen. The main street had several tea bars where large numbers of men (no women) were sitting talking or playing dominoes, drinking ubiquitous tea, with not a drop of alcohol in sight. We were told the unemployment rate in Hani was 80%. Here we heard similar accounts of electoral registration errors: 300 errors out of 1200 - 25%. We were told of pre-election intimidation by the Jandarma and leaders of government parties: some villagers had been told that if they voted for Hadep/Dehap they were voting for the PKK and their houses would be burnt down. Dehap candidates and activists were harassed if they visited villages and sometimes prevented from entering. There was an allegation of a wealthy candidate for the “True Path” party paying substantial sums of money in exchange for promises to vote for him. Two days previously inhabitants of the town had been stopped at road blocks, their names taken and prevented from traveling to Diyarbakir to attend a large pre-election rally for DEHAP.

Four of us and Ibrahim stayed in one room in a very stark little hotel (without running water); the other two plus Nezhna in a simple but spotless private house.

At 6 am we went into the town from our billet passing two schools where balloting was just beginning - with no problems. The team then split into two with one group going to Dicle about 30 km away, passing a balloting center on the way where no problems were reported. Just before crossing a long bridge over a reservoir (formed by damming the Dicle /Tigris) we were again stopped and heavily but quite politely scrutinized by the Jandarma. There was a machine gun mounted to cover the road. Before this we had three times been held up more pleasantly by large flocks of healthy looking brown sheep. From Dicle where we were again received by DEHAP activists we went to a small quite remote village called Baltaci where we were told open voting was taking place. We were again stopped by the Jandarma on the way, next to a formidable armored troop carrier with mounted heavy machine gun. By the time we reached the village the problem had been sorted out. People had refused to vote openly; the ballot had been stopped for 2 hours and the election official had then insisted on balloting in secret, which we observed to be taking place. There was a generally relaxed and friendly atmosphere during our visit even including the Jandarma outside the polling station. We observed the women of the village queuing up to vote but being shooed? Back by a man waving a stick because he felt they were coming forward too quickly. The village was obviously very poor with water coming from one point only - a natural spring under a rock. In this and most other villages there was a large mound of branches with leaves drying outside each house, to provide both animal feed and firewood in the winter.

On our way back from Baltaci we were again stopped near the troop carrier. This time there was much talk on the radio intercom after which we were told to go back to Dicle, not to stop there and in fact to “get out of town”. The NCO in charge was reported to have said, “Why do these people come. This is our election not theirs. We do not interfere in British elections”. To make sure that we left we were followed for 10-15 kilometers by a jeep carrying armed troops. We were then stopped by an armed plain-clothes “gendarme” who told us that he had received special orders from his brigadier in Diyarbakir that we were to leave the district. We then returned to Hani where we found the other group had got the same message. Before leaving Hani we were sent to a school where apparently there had been a problem of open balloting, but on arrival we were told it had been solved. We were not allowed into the building however.

An IHD (Human Rights Association) lawyer from Diyarbakir, was in Hani who told us that there had been no order from Diyarbakir to expel us from the district, and that we were within our rights to insist on going where we wanted and suggested that we should challenge the Jandarma on this. However, we felt that though we might have the right they had the might and that discretion was the better part of valor, so we left Hani and returned to Kocakoye (in time for lunch at the same small restaurant as the previous day) – but not without passing two more check points and passport scrutiny. No news of continuing problems at the polling stations had been received at K so we went to see the local electoral commission manager, a government official. He explained the system of counting the votes; initially a count is done at the polling station with representatives of each party present. The ballot papers are then sealed in a bag and taken to the district commissioner’s office where they are again counted and any discrepancies or complaints investigated and referred if necessary to the chief commissioner in Diyarbakir. When asked whether there were not too many “jandarma”/military on the scene he said that in his opinion there were “more than enough” which was probably as close to criticism as a government official could go publicly.

We did not see any ballot boxes being emptied or counted at Kocakoye but would have been alerted if any DEHAP observer had been concerned.

My conclusions from the observations our group was able to make are:

That despite minor difficulties the actual balloting process was conducted reasonably fairly. Party officials were able to report problems and these appeared mainly to have been corrected. Our hosts however said that the presence of international observers had had the effect of reducing the frequency of abuses.

That despite this, some people may have been intimidated by the ubiquitous military presence that tended to favor non DEHAP parties into voting for a “safe” party rather than Dehap even when they were sympathetic to its aims.

That in the run up to the election our information is that the main parties received proportionally far more national media coverage than DEHAP and that DEHAP workers had been discouraged or prevented from visiting some villages. Also some threats of severe consequences for DEHAP voters were made by the jandarma and locally prominent members of pro government parties.

That there were probably systematic errors - possibly up to 20% or more in some areas - introduced into the electoral registers particularly in areas where Kurdish people form a high proportion of the population. This should be further investigated, preferably by an independent body, since this practice could have had a major effect in reducing the total Dehap vote. The evidence is easily accessible. This inquiry should be commissioned by a neutral organization such as the OSCE or the Council of Europe, both of which Turkey is a member.

That there was and still is a campaign by the Turkish establishment to portray DEHAP as a party purely promoting Kurdish interests, rather than a party that stands for democracy and justice for all the citizens of Turkey. As there is widespread prejudice against Kurds in Turkey this makes it difficult for DEHAP to gain supporters in non-Kurdish regions, which will be necessary to pass the 10% barrier.

That the 10% barrier is difficult to cross and exists precisely to exclude DEHAP or similar progressive or regional parties from gaining parliamentary representation. AKP, the party now forming the government has said it is in favor of changing this to a 5% barrier, in line with most other systems of PR. But now it is in power this reform is unfortunately likely to have a low priority!