ANKARA (Albawaba) - A TV crewman asks a young lady, "What is an ombudsman?" Looking puzzled, she says she has no idea.
She, like most other Turks, is confused by the recent debate on both the notion of an ombudsman, who acts as a public watchdog against government wrongs, and on who will fill the office.
The position, which originated in Sweden in 1809, and is used in some 70 countries today, has been under discussion in Turkey for the past couple of years, with some experts noting its unfeasibility. But it peaked only recently, with former president and veteran politician Suleyman Demirel being touted as the most likely candidate.
Demirel has the support of both the True Path Party (DYP) and the Motherland Party (ANAP). Main opposition Virtue Party (FP) leader Recai Kutan, however, while agreeing that Demirel is one of the candidates, has only said that "Turkey is a country rich in human resources, and Turks would choose the most suitable candidate from a number of possible names."
Meanwhile, the whole notion, according to Istanbul University Professor of Law Bakir Caglar, is "a pipe dream." Its establishment in Turkey is technically impossible under the provisions of the 1982 Constitution, and requires a constitutional amendment.
"The ombudsman's office is very good for small countries with a system of states. It is just not practical for a country like Turkey with a population of 65 million people and a central administration," he added.
Moreover, he dismissed the draft amendment to the Constitution already in existence, which states that an ombudsman did not have to be a jurist.
"Of course the ombudsman has to be a jurist," he said. "The job demands an intimate knowledge of the law. An institution needs to be created that is not bound to the state, to resolve differences outside of the state's control. Anyone who fills the office must be a person of the law to settle differences between parties and repair damages cordially. This allows injustices in the administration to be redressed by bypassing the courts."
Nevertheless, most lawyers and jurists seem to agree that an ombudsman is just what Turkey needs, albeit with certain reservations.
Professor Bahri Ozturk of Izmir's Dokuz Eylul University, and head of the law faculty penalties department, noted that "the important office" would enable Turks to have their human rights grievances dealt with independently and impartially, before resorting to the European Court of Human Rights."
The Justice Ministry had been looking into the issue for the past four years now, and these studies are about to bear fruit, he said. "We should congratulate the prime minister and those who have worked on it." But, he stressed the major problem concerned accountability. "If we make the office accountable to the president, it cannot investigate claims against the presidency. If it is accountable to Parliament, it will act like another presidency. Nor can it be completely unaccountable. The wisest course would be to make it accountable to Parliament and set regulations that would prevent its becoming a second presidency." Ozturk said that the ombudsman's decisions were to be as binding as any judge's. He also said that Turkey would benefit more from an ombudsman system closer to the Scandinavian model than the limited offices in use in Germany and France.
© 2000 Al Bawaba (www.albawaba.com)
