Is the Solution Legal or Political?

A legal solution ensures legitimacy, while a political solution ensures implementability. Lasting justice is only possible by operating both together.

Legal or Political Solution?

In recent years, the widespread human rights violations in Turkey, particularly the grievances shaped around the KHK (Decree Law) processes, have brought two fundamental approaches to solutions to the forefront: legal solutions and political solutions.

While these two approaches are often presented as alternatives to each other, a deeper look at the issue reveals that this distinction is artificial and that a lasting solution can only be achieved by operating both areas together.

Legal Solution

A legal solution primarily refers to the establishment of justice through domestic legal channels, constitutional review mechanisms, and international human rights institutions. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), United Nations mechanisms, and other international bodies are important reference points in this context.

An examination of decisions rendered over the last decade shows that many proceedings involved serious legal issues, that evidence standards were lowered, and that practices such as collective accusations of guilt became widespread. This indicates that significant gains have been made on legal grounds, or at least that the normative framework recognizes the grievances.

However, there is a critical problem here: the implementation of legal decisions. The non-implementation of many international decisions in Turkey clearly shows that law alone is not sufficient. In other words, although law is theoretically a powerful tool, it can remain ineffective in practice without political will.

Political Solution

The political solution approach argues that the problem is political by nature and, therefore, the solution must also be realized through political mechanisms. Indeed, widespread, systematic, and prolonged human rights violations affecting large masses have often been brought to an end not only by court decisions but also by political decisions.

Tools such as amnesty regulations, retrial processes, collective restitution mechanisms, or parliamentary commissions become possible only with the direct intervention of political will. In this context, processes of public opinion formation, international pressure, and persuading political actors become decisive.

However, a political solution alone is not without risks. A political solution not based on legal grounds would not be permanent; it would become open to arbitrariness and could pave the way for new grievances.

Law ensures the legitimacy and permanence of the solution. Politics, on the other hand, determines the implementability of the solution.

Hybrid Solution Model

The biggest mistake often made in discussions has been to see legal and political solutions as alternatives to each other. However, these two areas are not mutually exclusive but complementary. Therefore, the healthiest approach is a model that can be called a "hybrid solution": implementing legal gains through political mechanisms.

Another significant problem that stands out in the current process is the lack of strategic integrity. Although different platforms, associations, and actors exert effort in various areas, these efforts are often fragmented and lack coordination. This leads to a lack of common discourse and goals, uncertainty in public opinion, and weak representation in the international arena.

Five Priorities for a New Approach

It is clear that past methods have not yielded sufficient results. Therefore, a new approach needs to be developed:

1. Defining priorities: Instead of trying to solve every problem at once, focusing on the most critical and symbolic areas.

2. Preserving legal achievements: International decisions and reports will form the basis of future solutions.

3. Increasing political pressure: Keeping the issue on the agenda through public opinion, media, and international actors.

4. Strengthening institutional structures: Creating more coordinated and representative organizations instead of fragmented structures.

5. Realistic goals: Developing a strategy by accepting that the solution will come in the medium and long term, not in the short term.

Conclusion

The solution to the structural problems experienced in Turkey is possible neither solely with law nor solely with politics. Without law, the solution remains unsecured; without politics, it remains ineffective. Therefore, the main issue is not to pit these two areas against each other, but to