Association of Journalists Vice Chair Yusuf Kanlı, political scientist Sezin Öney and lawyer M. Gökhan Tekşen discuss the consequences of the possible enactment of the bill on “agents of influence” which the government plans to add to the Turkish Penal Code as a new criminal definition

The draft bill on “agents of influence,” which the government is planning to add to the Turkish Penal Code (TCK) as a new criminal definition, first came up on the agenda in May. While the draft text for the bill was criticized for violating the legal principles of certainty and predictability, it led to concerns that ratification would lead to clear violations of the freedom of expression and academic freedom.

The Expression Interrupted platform hosted an online panel to discuss the consequences for the freedom of the press, academic freedom and freedom of expression in general, should the draft law, initially planned to be brought before Parliament as part of the 9th Judicial Package but later removed from the package, be enacted.

The panel, which was held on 26 June, was moderated by journalist Meltem Akyol, with Association of Journalists Vice Chair Yusuf Kanlı, political scientist Sezin Öney and lawyer M. Gökhan Tekşen participating as speakers.

Yusuf Kanlı: “A very grave threat to democracy”

Association of Journalists Vice Chair Yusuf Kanlı was the first to speak about the provision, the timing and form in which it will come before Parliament is still unclear. Kanlı said that the draft as it emerged de facto intends to punish criticism of research focusing on Turkey’s national policies by the opposition and civil society, that it had been prepared with the same mindset as the anti-terrorism law and that they had gotten the impression it could be used against any section of society should it be enacted.

Kanlı added that given the 20-year performance of the Justice and Development Party (AKP) government exhibiting a repressive and controlling approach across the board, this provision also points to a “government that is trying to take measures on the assumption that [the media or the opposition] will act in bad faith.” Stating that the duty of the press is to criticize and to exercise oversight on behalf of the public, Kanlı said that criticism being accused of “espionage” would be a fundamental problem for the freedom of the press.

Kanlı emphasized that should the provision be ratified, the regime in Turkey would transform to a full autocracy and said that such an unclearly expressed provision would pose an intervention that not only destroys the press and civil society but even internal opposition within parties and as such poses a very grave threat to democracy.

Gökhan Tekşen: “Could be used for purges within the government”

Attorney-at-law M. Gökhan Tekşen said that in the form it was first made public, the provision on “agents of influence” could connect everyone who is a detractor with “espionage.” Tekşen emphasized that the text as revealed could not be considered a proposed law and added that instead of stepping back upon public reaction, the government could include the contents of the provision as “aggravated forms” of the current articles of the TCK governing “espionage” crimes and thereby realize it.

Answering a question on why there is a need for a new criminal definition called “agents of influence” in addition to the current articles of the TCK governing the crime of “political and military espionage,” Tekşen said: “The ‘law on disinformation’ also imposed severe restrictions on the freedom of expression, but its influence remained limited. This is a repressive legislation that would cover a much wider societal field. Therefore, I define it as an article that would create a more autocratic regime leading to increased pressure. There can be no such article of law under rule of the law that is pro-democracy and pro-human rights. It should be impossible to even propose such an article.”

Tekşen expressed his view that the societal opposition had not reacted strongly enough and added that such a provision would not only affect the opposition but could also be used for purges within the government.

Sezin Öney: “The ‘inspiration’ might be the practice in Russia”

Political scientist Sezin Öney said that governments resort to the claim “They have it in the West too” at times when they are trying to pass negative legislation. Öney described the differences between the proposed legislation in Turkey, the proposed legislation in the European Union and the existing legislation in the US. Öney said that the proposed EU directive, emerging especially after the war in Ukraine, was a measure against “perception forming” by Russia using radical right populist parties in Europe, and had been heavily criticized by civil society.

Öney emphasized that the proposed legislation in Turkey targeted “internal threats” and that Russia, which has been narrowing its civil society filed using similar regulations since 2012 could have served as “inspiration” for the proposed legislation in Turkey. Öney stated that academics in particular were under significant threat from the practice in Russia and said that the practice in each individual country was an indicator of the state of freedom of expression and the government’s approach to the societal opposition in that country.

Pointing to the importance of civil society keeping this issue current, Öney said that the consequences of such provisions, which could be widely implemented, on many sections of society, from academics to businesspeople, should be well communicated.