In the pursuit of greater compliance among World Bank creditor member countries, the World Bank Institute (WBI) has developed a global approach known as Indigenous Knowledge (IK). Indigenous Knowledge encompasses a set of systems that emphasize “living well and maintaining a harmonious relationship with the natural world.” It draws on the wisdom of previous generations, informs the practices of the present, and adapts to contemporary society. To illustrate this concept, consider the African proverb: “However highly you may regard somebody, if that person decides to walk naked, chances are the tensile strength of that respect may reach the maximum, prompting you to turn your head to avoid a terrible sight.”
This analogy came to mind when I learned about the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) Grand Chamber’s recent ruling on the injustices in Turkey’s judicial practices under President Erdogan’s regime. After years of receiving a continuous stream of complaints about these injustices, the ECtHR Grand Chamber declared, in no uncertain terms, that “enough is enough.” Imprisoning innocent people is not only a public injustice but also a violation of the very essence of justice itself, both in practical and philosophical terms. Such egregious actions cannot go unnoticed or unchallenged.
On September 26, 2023, history witnessed a significant moment in the global pursuit of human rights. The ECtHR Grand Chamber’s ruling in the Yüksel Yalçınkaya v. Turkey case put President Erdogan and his regime on the spot, asserting that the 2017 conviction of a former Turkish teacher on terrorism charges was a violation of his rights, primarily because it relied heavily on his use of an encrypted messaging application called “ByLock.” However, the ruling’s broader message extends beyond the specific case; it exposes Erdogan’s disregard for human rights in favor of advancing his political and economic agenda through unjust means.
The roots of the ECtHR Grand Chamber’s ruling lie in the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed in November 1950 and ratified by Turkey in 1954. These judgments, finding violations, are legally binding on the respective states, as recognized by the Turkish Constitution.
Even Turkey’s Constitutional Court, the final judicial authority in the country, must acknowledge the binding nature of ECtHR decisions and incorporate them into its precedents. Given this legal framework, one must wonder where the Erdogan administration finds the audacity to blatantly ignore fundamental human rights and international legal principles with such impunity. In the wake of the ECtHR Grand Chamber’s decision, one would expect the Turkish government to reflect on the human rights violations and propose a compliance plan. Instead, President Erdogan expressed his discontent with the court’s decisions regarding rights violations against his critics and warned against expecting Turkey to comply with the ECtHR’s demands, citing the court’s alleged alignment with “terrorist organizations.”
Justice Minister Yilmaz Tunc and Chief Justice Arslam echoed Erdogan’s sentiment, criticizing the ECtHR’s authority and evidentiary evaluation. This response underscores the challenges in rectifying the human rights crisis in Turkey, despite the ECtHR’s clear message.
The human rights situation in Turkey remains dire, with numerous cases of strip searches, incarceration of family members, and denial of medical care to those in need. It is disheartening that being a government critic, perceived as one, or merely associated with the Gulen movement can lead to such severe repercussions.
Every aspect of personal freedom in Turkey seems to have vanished, despite the country’s membership in the Council of Europe, for which the ECtHR serves as a vital tool. It raises the question of whether the ECtHR can adopt a system, similar to the WBI’s Indigenous Knowledge approach, to improve the human rights situation in Turkey. Human rights institutions exist at various levels, from national to global, and addressing Turkey’s human rights crisis requires a comprehensive and holistic approach encompassing political, historical, social, economic, environmental, and even spiritual dimensions.
In light of Erdogan’s reaction to the ECtHR ruling, he appears to sense how the world perceives him, and his dilemma may involve finding a way out of this situation. Erdogan faces domestic, regional, and international challenges that cannot be resolved in isolation. The world must unite in addressing the human rights crisis in Turkey from all angles, recognizing that a holistic approach is needed to bring about meaningful change.
