Our old planet is witnessing a new democratisation drive which started in the 1970s when Portugal, Spain and Greece made a transition or return to democracy. The 1980s were the years when many military - bureaucratic regimes, particularly in countries of Latin America, collapsed. After 1990, following the break-up of the socialist authoritarian systems, new democratic regimes began to enter the world stage in Europe and Asia.

Parallel to these transformations, a perceptible change is taking place in the content of the concepts of development/underdevelopment. In the world of the 1950s, these were categories conceived particularly and primarily in socio-economic terms. Today, however, certain political values have begun to come to the forefront in addition to the social and economic criteria of development /underdevelopment. "Development" is now a concept that also involves the political model. From this point of view, whether the regime of a country is democratic or not is closely related also to the level of development of that country.

Let us look at certain European countries which have recently undergone system changes. It is obvious that these countries such as the Baltic countries, Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Croatia, etc. are faced with serious economic problems. However, although they do not have any considerable past experience of democracy, they have made significant achievements on the road to democracy over the last five to six years.

These countries which are not much better than Turkey in terms of economic conditions are now ahead of Turkey on the path of pluralistic-liberal democracy based on human rights and on the supremacy of law. The same observation applies even for certain countries of Latin America which have in the past constantly alternated between democracy and military regimes. Most of these countries, too, have now speeded up their march towards political modernisation or democratisation.

This is clearly born out by comparative analyses made on a global scale. In some of these studies which take human rights and freedoms as their starting point, Turkey's performance in these areas seems to be behind even that of certain Latin American and even Asian and African countries (see for example the report "Freedom in the World" by Freedom House). The quantitative data and the methods used in those studies may be defective in certain aspects. However, it should be admitted that these defects are not such as to invalidate the essence of the overall picture above. Things that happen in Turkey and people who live through them are evidence enough and witnesses of this fact.

Today, there is indeed a problem of democratisation or, rather, lack of democratisation in Turkey. In the area of political-legal regime, this problem has deep roots in history. The interludes of military rule in the recent past imposed practices that strengthened the state excessively against the individual, confined human rights to narrow frameworks, impaired the supremacy of law and the independence of the judiciary, and even weakened laicism.

However, recognition and constant reiteration of these facts is not and has not been sufficient to overcome the problems. The main point to note is that elected governments do not seem to make a serious move forward to change this structure and to achieve democratisation. The major obstacle in the way of democratisation is not the legacy of history but a lack of political will to overcome it.

It will be argued that separatist terrorism is what prevents democratisation. However, this view is riddled with two (meaning "hostile foreign sources") basic weaknesses. The first is the insistence on "external centres" to explain terrorism and the refusal to see that lack of democracy and freedom has a part in it. The second is the fact that, in spite of authoritarian practices, the state of emergency, and even certain practices that do not conform to the idea of a state governed by the rule of law, terrorism still continues.

In recent years, the triangle of politics-mafia-bureaucracy, which feeds also on the existence of terrorism, has been threatening to push the existing democracy even behind the positions it has been able to reach. The fact that transparency has all but disappeared on the level of state and administration and the fact that channels of political and judicial control have become clogged up, are both cause and consequence of this corruption.

Dissolution on the level of the state finds echoes on the level of civil society and people, and this is what is really dangerous. Political parties are unable to produce alternatives. The biggest ones can hardly obtain one fifth of the votes in general elections. Dispersion and fragmentation in political life is the main trend. Parties of the centre are losing strength while those of the extreme right are on the rise.

According to some opinion polls, the army is the institution that is trusted most by the people. Parliament, parties and politicians have the lowest ranking. Lack of trust in civilian political institutions is becoming more widespread.

These developments should be sufficient to think that "the alarm bells are ringing for democracy in a country".

Of the problems that the western countries solved gradually within the span of at least three centuries, the main ones may be listed as follows: transition from feudal fragmentation to nation-building and to the nation-state, from medieval economies to primitive capital accumulation and capitalism, from centralist absolute monarchies to constitutional monarchies or republics, from theocratic or semi-theocratic systems to laic or secular systems, from democracy based on limited suffrage to democracy based on universal suffrage, from classical-liberal democracy to social democracy and to the system of social rights, from the idea of classical justice to the idea of social justice, from rural to urban life, etc.

Turkey has faced all of the above-mentioned problems simultaneously in the last 70 years. The juxtaposed, multi-layered character of the basic problems is one of the historical causes that have complicated democratisation in Turkey.

Located as it is in a sensitive part of the Middle East and the Islamic world, Turkey is faced with these two burning problems: making an effort to reconcile laicism and Islam with one another, on one hand, and the nation-state and the different ethnic identities with one another, on the other hand.

The foregoing is an overall description and is presented not as a pretext for problems or failures but for the purpose of providing some understanding of their sources.

Then, what should be done? What can be done? It would be more appropriate to seek the answer to these questions in past and present conditions.

It would be rather pleasant to be able to argue that the past and present conditions dictate democracy to Turkey, that Turkey does not have an alternative to democracy. Unfortunately, however, we are far from having such a right to be complacent. Turkey's history and especially recent history are not unfamiliar with interruptions of democracy. It should be noted that the corruption of the state and political institutions today feeds or may feed searches for an authoritarian regime. There is the possibility that extremist parties and alliances may push the country in even more anti-democratic directions compared with the present situation.

However, the picture may be interpreted in a different way as well. The last 150-year history of the country is also the history of modernisation in law and in state administration. The Kemalist Revolution in particular has made significant contributions to nation-building, secularisation and democratisation. This is sufficiently borne out by a comparison of Turkey with other countries of the political and cultural geography to which she belongs. In addition, today's Turkey displays a picture that is differentiated, diversified and opened up to the world in economic, social, cultural, ideological and political terms. An authoritarian alternative with a military or civilian appearance would not have the capability of running such a complex country. The international state of affairs, too, is favourable; the winds in the world are blowing in the direction of democracy. Turkey's failure to carry out the programme of democratisation would mean her break with and exclusion from major centres of the international community.

In brief, it may be argued on these grounds that, objectively, Turkey's chances of democratisation are strong.

Having made this determination, a subjective factor comes in: do the pro-democracy forces have the sufficient will for this? It seems that democracy will develop not because it is an inevitable process but to the extent that it is fought for.

This is the first meaning of the word "perspectives" that occurs in the main heading of the present Report. In other words, will Turkey choose to be a modern world state or a "parochial" state? The former of these two choices corresponds in this Report to "democratisation".

Democracy entered the stage of history first as a political concept and institution. What was to be the form of organisation of the state? Democratic theory and practice has answered that question briefly as follows: Political power must conform to the will of citizens. This means either the rule of the people by the people itself (i.e. direct democracy) or its consent to be ruled by those whom it elects (i.e. representative democracy). The latter is the main model of democracy in our age and manifests itself in free elections. Consequently, to draw an inference from what has been said above, one may say: Democracy is a historical product concerned with the source of power (the sovereignty of the people or nation) rather than with the problem of how to limit power. This much is also called very briefly "political democracy".

However, this much of democracy is not sufficient to describe the rich content that the concept and the institution, has come to acquire today. Although "election" is one of the foundations of democracy, the latter cannot be reduced to the ballot box. For, if democracy is the sovereignty of the people or nation, this may sometimes be oppressing and anti-democractic. "Majoritarian democracies" that are based on popular elections but that ignore minority rights and block the ways for the minority to become the majority have not failed to exist.

For these reasons, it became necessary to complement the concept of political democracy or the political aspect of democracy (elected governments) with new concepts and adjectives. This necessity is concerned now with the limitation of power, not with its source. The phrases "liberal democracy" or "pluralistic democracy" are an expression of these searches for and gains of limited power. A government, even if elected by the people, can be regarded as a democratic one only if it respects a pluralistic and liberal social structure. To express it in legal language, the relevant concept here is the whole body of human rights. Therefore, democracy is not simply a regime where the source of political power is the people's will, but also a system where this power is limited by human rights.

Another element introduced by democratic theory and practice with regard to the limitation of the state and of political power is the concept of State of Law/Rule of Law, which means that the state and political power will deserve to be called "democratic" only if it accepts the supremacy of law, which in turn involves the obligation to abide by the national constitution as well as the general and universal principles of law. Needless to say, this last condition assumes that the national constitution itself conforms to the universal principles of law and democracy.

So, democracy or democratisation (or lack of it) is a wide-ranging and complex process which has political dimensions and which necessarily involves such issues as human rights and state governed by the rule of law.

Are democracy and democratisation an ideal? If we mean by the word "ideal" the political systems developed by mankind which is "the closest to the best" or "the least bad", we must answer the above question in the affirmative. This answer applies for Turkey as well.

If, however, what is meant or understood by "ideal" is "a future goal" or "a nice thing whose achievement can be postponed", then we must answer the question in the negative. A pessimistic and superficial approach tends to view democracy as a luxury or prize that will be enjoyed after all the complicated and piled-up problems are solved. However, democracy is not an "ideal" in that sense but a practical key to solutions, and solutions agreed upon by all can be produced only in democracy. Such solutions should have a higher chance of success than solutions imposed from above. The political history of the world and Turkey is quite rich in examples that prove it.

If this analysis is correct, we may state that democracy and democratisation are not only lofty human values but also a more efficient investment and method in the long term. Democracy is the most reliable support of economic and political stability and development.

Democratisation or lack of it in a country has various political, legal, social, cultural, economic and other dimensions and reasons. This is the case in Turkey, too.

This Report focuses on those which are of a political and, in particular, legal character. However, we do not claim to cover all the problems observed in these areas in our country.

The present work of research makes an attempt at identifying the main legal obstacles to democratisation in Turkey and at proposing solutions.

Therefore, the basic concern is a survey of legislation. The purpose is to help weed out the fundamental legal rules that obstruct democratisation.

In the survey, the problems of democratisation and the proposed solutions have been collected around three main axes, each of which corresponds to a Part and follows the "concept of democracy" given above.

The first axis may be said to be the political dimensions of democratisation, which means determination of the national will and the structuring of political power. Issues concerning elections, parties and power are dealt with here (Part One).

The second axis is the issue of human rights, one of the indispensable elements of democracy and democratisation. A selective approach has been taken to this issue also, covering not all the components of human rights but only those which most closely and directly concern political democracy (Part Two).

The third axis is formed by the State of Law, and the judicial review that it requires. It is obvious that the efficient functioning of a democracy depends to a great extent on the strength of judicial review and sanctions (Part Three).

As a matter of fact, the triad of political dimensions, human rights and State of Law also conforms to the formulation employed in the Turkish Constitutions of 1961 and 1982: a democratic state based on human rights and governed by the rule of law (Art. 2).

The principle of a "laic state" that occurs in those formulations, closely interconnected as it is with each of the main parts of the Report, has been treated separately wherever it is relevant.

Concerning the issues treated in each Part and in their sub-divisions, essentially the following order of sequence has been followed:

a) Description of the relevant legislation;

b) A critique of it; and

c) Proposals for amendments.

The description of legislation covers mainly those pieces of legislation which are considered harmful from the point of democracy. Nevertheless, certain aspects which we believe should be retained but which currently are a subject of debate have also been covered even if partly (such as the system of government).

In criticisms and proposals, an effort has been made at thinking as much independently of the current conditions of the country as possible, at concentrating on principles rather than on current conditions.