‘Legal System in Turkey does not Generate Responsive Solutions’

Lawyer Sedef Erken who is also the Founding President of Istanbul Autism Volunteers Association evaluates politics and civil society relations with her observations in the field of social policies, especially the rights of the disabled. Stating that there are historical, sociological and especially legal reasons for the inability to socialize the civil sphere, Erken notes that the legal system cannot generate solutions for those who have problems and who need responsive solutions on those problems.

Why do the political representatives not use their experience in social policies, especially in the disability policies of civil society?

There’s more than one reason to that. It’s a matter of supply and demand. It’s determined by the expectation of the society from politics, the state, the government or from the opposition. It has a lot to do with the civil society turnout. Public administration perceives the representation of civil society as a symbolic thing for most of the time. Because it’s only looking to see if there is a large audience behind the demands or not. We talk about the low level of participation in civil society. As long as we keep these rates, all the works you offer are archived as if they were technical reports. Because there is no real social demand behind them, or we can even say that there is “pressure” on them. It is not easy for large systems such as the state to take action without social pressure or public pressure. Politics in Turkey has been very popularized in recent years. In fact, there is even an approach that we can call tabloid politics. As someone who has been trying to explain to the ruling and opposition parties the necessity of working ahead with the measures regarding the disabled area for 13 years, I can say that if the government changes, we will have to start from scratch. Because the opposition parties do not have enough technical knowledge about social policies. Unfortunately, they do not have real studies on the field. In short, I see all of these as intertwined issues.

What do you think is the reason for the low level of participation in civil society, or for the families of children with disabilities or autism not participating in the struggle in the civil sphere, why cannot the civil society become socialized?

There are many historical, sociological and especially legal reasons for that. But very basically, we can say that the legal system in Turkey cannot provide solutions for people who have problems and who need responsive solutions. Let me give an example from myself. My son is in high school. If I try to enroll him in a school through the MEB system and if he is not accepted or his rights on paper are not implemented, if the school administration does not meet the demands and if I file a suit against, I know that discrimination or administrative action will not yield results before 3-5 years, and they know it as well. Therefore, such applications we make do not pose any risk to them. They neither pose a risk in terms of their status, nor do they pose a risk in terms of the illegal execution of the system there. Now, you cannot ask someone who goes through this to seek a solution in the legal system. Why would they participate in a civil society work that has no ability to find a legal solution? Maybe because they wish civil society to come up with an instant solution for the matter. However, the number of people who make demands on you is beyond your power as a civil society. For this, a solution can be generated only if the public administration starts doing something about the situation. Thus, no investment is made in a civil society that does not promise a solution. Families also have fears. They think that if they object to the existing practices, something bad may happen to them. You can’t object to that. Because there are examples of this. In short, we are in a vicious circle in every aspect.

Politics plays an important part in making space for civil society or in contributing to the expansion of civil space. But politics cannot fulfill that part, what do you think are the problems arising from politics itself in that matter?

We may begin with the political parties act and with the fact that we are in a country that does not have a civil constitution. The aim of civil society is to convey certain needs, problems and solutions to decision makers with certain representations. Civil society interacts with decision makers to produce a social policy out of interaction. Civil society should be in an environment where the grassroots can convey all its reflections, not just in relation with those in the political administrative positions. Because any project you create on the table may not go as planned on the field. Observing the field from afar means not being able to see the rooted problems. The political parties act in Turkey is not in a situation to let people from civil society to enter politics. There are now accepted situations, such as the president’s men, the women’s quota and the disabled quota which everyone including the opposition parties in politics complains about. I try to make the information we have available for everyone I can reach. After the information I have given them for 13 years, no one turned to me and said that they had made a proposal out of the works I conveyed, or that they had done such a study about them. Therefore, civil society is considered by politics as a group of people trying to do something on their own, this is what I think. Because what is said and done is very different. In other words, when you talk to them, you are constantly told that you are right or that none of those things would happen if they had been in power. I find this to be a very superficial approach. In short, it is difficult to expect a solution in terms of social demands if politics does not create a democratic process within itself and if it keeps on establishing administrations only with one man and with those around him.

It is actually not a demand to say that the state should increase them. How much should the state increase it or how would the cost be met or how would the state allocate the budget, or what would be the contribution of the raise to the solution? In short, all areas on this subject need to be studied beforehand. A civil society supported from the grassroots working on the applicability of its proposals and a political structure that understands and develops suggestions and that generates solutions…

So if the conditions were suitable, that is, if there were policy mechanisms open to negotiation and to utilize accumulation, how would you evaluate the situation in terms of civil society? Is there such a preparation or a perspective in civil society?

First of all, let me state that my answers do not cover the whole civil society, I speak with my own field and observations. On the problem, we would fail. Because in civil society, instead of supporting each other’s work or listening to each other’s approaches and acting together in accordance with the purpose, there are problems such as internal competition. Secondly, there is the situation of not doing the homework right. Just going with demands and not studying the costs of those demands. Not working on cross-cutting subjects, not even being aware of the costs of one’s own demands. For example, there is a demand on the rehabilitation rights of children with disabilities from the state on increasing the group trainings from 12 hours to 20 hours. It is actually not a demand to ask the state to increase them. How much should the state increase it or how would the cost be met or how would the state allocate the budget, or what would be the contribution of the raise to the solution? In short, all areas on this subject need to be studied beforehand. We are talking about an exemplary model, a civil society supported from the grassroots, working on the applicability of the proposals, and a political structure that understands and develops suggestions and generates solutions. There is no such thing in Turkey yet…

When you think about the disability area in terms of public or local governments, which one is more open to negotiation?

Local governments have a bit more motivation. Because when mayors make an investment in their own region, they know that it is a good move to increase support. The problem here is this, small investments can be made by the local government, but more general solutions require a collaborative model. We’ve been experiencing this for a while, local governments are opening centers for the disabled. But the questions of what the purpose of those centers are, what will be produced there, whether there will be educational development for the people who will receive service or whether experts are working in the centers, or for how longa re difficult ones to be answered. If we go back to the beginning, if there are no planned integrated social policies, the moves of local governments would remain very weak. Only the periodic needs of small groups of people who go to such centers to receive services would be met. But the centers won’t solve the problem alone.

What are your observations about the work of the political and civil sphere in terms of the problems that need to be resolved regarding the disabled?

There are two important issues to be resolved regarding the disabled in Turkey, education and employment. Because only 9 percent of the disabled people in Turkey are in school and only the 10 percent of the disabled participate in employment. This means that everyone else is housebound. For some of those, it is a good idea to open a center, have them paint, or have a couple of shoe covers sewn, but it is not a solution. There is a quota on employment of disabled people in Turkey. But those who do not fill the quota are fined, which eliminates the need to provide employment for the employers who pay for it. This needs to be repealed. Instead of just calling it a necessity, solutions should be generated on why the disabled people are not being employed, or on how the disabled can be employed. We see such attempts from time to time like: ‘We will do the following for the disabled.’ etc. These usually happen on the electoral periods. This applies both for the ruling party as well as for the opposition parties. Then it fades and forgotten. Civil society then does not call out. Because it has no such mechanism. There is no mechanism to act together and impose sanctions, neither in terms of things not done nor in terms of promises made. Therefore, from time to time, before the election, the disabled are seen as a vote depot, and they have been stalled for years by promises. This is my observation.