About the FORUM JWG January - June 2009 Report

These reports interpret the activities of local FORUM Joint Working Groups, positive and negative experiences, reactions and results in the first half of 2009. It aims to present general information on our work to the media and the public. It is now to be submitted to the chairing offices of political parties. All political parties express that they support civil society’s participation in law making processes that is encouraging. However if that is the case why are these seats still unoccupied? When will deputies find couple of hours to spare for their elector, or when will they realise that it is not very nice or reasonable to say that they cannot spare that time?

We are hoping to find answers to these questions from the answers of the chairpersons of the parties if we can meet with them. Of course, we believe that the answers will be positive and the problems will be solved permanently from October 2009 onwards.

Let us get back to the report now. (Definitions will be a repeat for those who are familiar with the issue. However, we began with them considering that some may not know them.)

What is FORUM JWG?

Discussion groups of about 20-25 people in every city made up of civil society, trades organisations, and opinion leaders, people representing different social sections.

What is the objective?

Reversing the direction of political decision processes, which work from top down in Turkey, and being able to influence the decision from bottom up. The FORUMs aim to meet once a month discussing the local and general issues they picked together with the MPs they elected and sent to the Parliament regularly, without mediators, directly and without censorship.

Principles?

They have three principles: The first one is expressed in the title of meetings “Prejudices are not allowed”, the second one “focusing on the solutions instead of putting the blame on” and the last one is hearing one another, empathising first before “making decisions and implementing them. The local FORUMs determine the rest.

How many cities have FORUM JWGs?

It started in 6 cities in June 2008, nucleuses were formed in 20 cities during summer, and from October 2008 onwards FORUMs followed one another. Some cities could not maintain regular meetings –for various reasons- the FORUM meetings take place in 18 cities (in alphabetical order): Adana, Ankara, Batman, Diyarbakýr, Edirne, Eskiþehir, Gaziantep, Hatay, Ýzmir, Kayseri, Kocaeli, Konya, Malatya, Mardin, Sakarya, Þanlýurfa, Trabzon, Van.
FORUM meetings will not take place during the holiday of TGNA. However we will continue trying to set up nucleuses in cities where there is no FORUM JWG. We aim to reach 40 cities by the end of April 2010, setting up FORUM JWGs in half of 81 cities. (Two third of the population of Turkey live in those cities)

What is the difference from similar platforms?

The differences from council and city assemblies are obvious, those are set up by laws; and they work on local issues only. They also have the power to MAKE DECISION. FORUMs differ on these two points. They do not intend to make decisions, and they discuss general issues, local issues and the issues about the new Constitution altogether. They are different platforms on various issues (City Assemblies, Local Agenda 21, Tümikom etc.) on the points of “making decision and monitoring”. However it does not mean that FORUMs cannot work with them. Like other civil organisations those platforms send representatives to FORUMs in many cities. We do not attempt to overtake the functions of any existing organisation and we collaborate with bodies that run similar work. As civil society we cannot afford wasting our time and energy in competition.

Who do we collaborate or cooperate?

With everyone. We come together with STGM (Civil Society Development Centre), ÝHOP (Human Rights Joint Platform), YASADER (Legislation Association), PDD (Parliamentary Advisers Association) and PMD (Parliamentary reporters Association) once in every two months having consultations, as well as supporting the work of one another. Moreover we try to have each meeting of Ankara FORUM with the related organisation. (The meeting on “Global economic crisis” with TEPAV, the meeting on “What kind of local governance?” with “Turkish Parliamentarians’ Association” and the meeting on “How to reach social consensus?” with Human Rights Association.

What are being discussed, who decides?

We have had two items on the agenda until now. One was a general issue discussed by the whole country, and the other was a local issue. The issue of “Constitution” will be added to them from October 2009 onwards. In order to prevent distraction we recommend the three items to be discussed together. For example if the general issue is “Health Reform”, the local issue can be how the general issue affects the locality in practice –what is going on in the hospitals and pharmacies?- and if the third topic is “Articles in the Constitution regarding health issues and public responsibility in health” the issue will not be distracted and discussed in detail.

The structure of meetings?

Management of meetings are up to the local FORUM. However there is a recommended and practiced model. There is a facilitator for every meeting. It is important that this person is someone respected by different sections of the society. The meetings usually begin by an introduction of the issue for 10 minutes in an impartial way and by one of the organisations who suggested it. Then a “general” issue and a “local” issue are discussed each for one hour. A third item on “The Constitution” will be added to them from October onwards. Meeting is expected to last approximately for three hours and a coffee break is recommended. Meetings star right on time –even if no one turns up. (We insist on it in order to be taken seriously). When the previously announced time of the meeting is up it is announced so that those who wish may leave. However if there are people who want to continue we continue for another hour.

What is the meaning of talks if there is no decision made?

The first thing we aim is to get “everyone to hear, listen and understand –even if not accept- one another”. Even that is an important gain in a country where no one wants to hear anything apart from their own ideas. Asking a structure where all sections of the society are represented, even the smallest in numbers make their voice heard, to make a decision would be demanding the collapse of that structure. What is discussed does not remain there anyway. They are reported on the website. That is a resource for researchers and journalists. Moreover a monthly report for the outcome of all FORUM meetings will be prepared and presented to public opinion and to MPs and political parties.

Is the media interested?

Local media is interested. Participation of them doubly important because of publicity and because as local “Journalists’ Societies” they have a place in this family picture. If it were not for the local press and their reporting of “empty seats” at meetings FORUMs would not be able to attract the same attention. Mainstream media’s interest did not go beyond personal connections. However we believe that once the FORUMs prove themselves this will change. Responses we will get to our appointment requests from the chief editors in mainstream media in the second part of June will tell us more.

Main problems endured so far

A. On the part of MPs and political parties:

1. Civil society is not taken seriously. Deputies get their vote from the people but feel responsible to their party leader. That is because their leader makes the final decision on who will stand as candidate. The record of MPs for the last 6 months is poor:

The number of meetings : 98
Average participation rate of MPs: % 6,62
Average civil society participation rate: % 69,96
Yes, roughly seven to seventy. It is a sad picture.

2. Liaisons with civil society are in the category of fancy activites that “you do if you have any time left for it”. Everyone agrees that the work is positive and useful, but keep saying they are too busy, and they can attend one meeting a month if they can “find time”.

3. Party executives, group deputy chairs too are hard to get in touch despite positive statements. We doubt that they believe in the necessity of such collaboration.

4. Both TGNA chair, and Minister of State in charge of civil society and the EU held large meetings but that was it. Our requests for appointment to follow it up were unanswered. Civil society feels like “showroom dummies” when invited to such meetings. Participation of civil society in law making process is perceived as something which would delay and make things more difficult.

5. Party executives believe that they keep the pulse of the elector through their party organisations. If that had been the case would we have witness governmental parties melting away and vanishing in elections? Relationship of the elected with the elector is like a body that works only one way –conveying the happy news only. Public relations of MPs are mainly about personal requests like (finding a job, promotion etc. ). On the higher levels, methods such as capturing organisations (like Chambers, Bar Associations, and Trade Unions etc.) and controlling civil society are still popular notions.

B. Let us criticise ourselves too:

1. It is necessary to develop civilian consciousness . Citizens still do not believe that they can control the ones they elected. They believe “only if the MPs turn up this will work, but the MPs would not turn up”. Citizens find it more realistic to try to solve their personal affairs through party or the MPs. Everyone was surprised with the idea “If s/he is an MP we are the elector. What kind of representative cannot find couple of hours per month for who s/he represents?” However what encouraged us most was that this idea spread and the FORUMs did not disintegrate despite the disinterest of MPs.

2. We had to struggle with the mentality of “Either them or us”. Collaborating with someone or an organisation on a specific issue that we do not agree in general is considered almost like treason. Nevertheless, both have a place in the society. We have lost years and many lives in the dead end of denying the existence of those who are not like us or trying to eliminate them. Now we have to produce and practice a culture of tolerating one another, and bringing forward the issues we agree on and finding solutions together.

3. Few people carry out the job in NGOs. Many NGOs who are sensitive about their representative power are sadly operating on the backs of few people. If the person in charge is busy, ill or somewhere else there is nobody else to attend a meeting.

4. We make promises too easily and of course we forget some easily. That is another sad fact. Organisers of Local FORUMs are worried to death before every meeting wondering if the promises will be kept, if the seats of NGOs will be occupied, or will they remain empty along with the seats of the MPs?

C. Problem of funding:
It is obvious that his type of extensive work cannot operate on voluntary basis. Funds exist in Turkey but not for such projects. We have provided the necessary funds in parts firs some amount from Norway and then some from Britain. We have lasted for a year. Target is higher for the second year, and we applied to other sources for funding alongside Norway and Britain. Our principle is clear: Whoever provides us fund without intervening in our Project we will accept. Let the funders worry about the rest! We are not scared of the polemics on “On whose Money this Wheel is turning, who is behind this?” One of the main principles of civil work is “openness”, and we will publish the Project budget and the funders on the website.

Of course our real aim is to self- finance this project, which we believe contribute to democracy in Turkey. It is clear that there will be a problem of “convincing”, an issue of “trust” initially. However as we will get ourselves accepted through our determined work and as the parties see the benefits of the work funding will no longer be a problem. Every city can afford the expenses of their own FORUM easily. Even now many items of expenses are provided by participants. For example we have never paid rent for venues. We have either used the halls of trade unions or chambers. Now the support of local councils –providing hall and vehicle, inviting popular people to meetings as facilitators etc. – helps FORUM work and helps to spread them. We are open to all contributions and assistance as long as we keep our principles and independence.

Solutions:

1. Empty seats: Seats of MPs are left empty if they do not attend the meeting. Press publish the pictures of them. Some resented by saying “why are you exposing us?” However, if there is an unpleasant picture it is not us who is causing it but the MPs by not attending the meetings. We are only saying, “You are the representative of us in the Parliament who we voted for. Nobody can fill your seat. Please come so that your seat does not remain empty.” For the sake of consistency we need to do the same for the NGOs who declared to be part of the FORUMs but do not turn up for the meetings! And we do it.

2. In answering those who say “Either them or us” we say “we will be sad if you do not turn up for that reason, your absence would be felt. Your seat will be here, we want you to come back and fill it. However these apply to others as well, since they exist in this city too, hence they have a place in the ‘family picture’ of the city. You are side by side anyway, do not you live in the same city?” We allow the sceptics to observe for a while. We understand that past experience make them cautious. We tell them “In that case observe for a while. When you feel confident your seat will be waiting for you”.

3. Same time in every city: First Saturday of every month! (except Kocaeli and Sakarya. FORUMs in these two cities are on the first FRIDAY of every month.) We expect the following benefits of that:

1. Easy to remember, hard to forget.
2. Same issue are on the agenda on same dates hence most cities will be discussing the same one or two issues.
3. There will be a chance to compare when reports published on the website.
4. Great convenience for journalists: “What does Turkey think about the issue of this or that?”
5. That is also convenient for us and for political parties who want to keep an eye on the pulse of the elector.

This is it for now. We are waiting for your criticisms and opinion on the project and the way it works.
And your active participation too …

With warm regards and respect,
Þanar Yurdatapan
On behalf of TGNA/ FORUM JWG kitchen staff