From Editor-in-Chief
Freedom Observer returns with a packed agenda. The country’s main topic of discussion has remained unchanged for months: the elimination of the PKK and the possibility of a new “Opening” in the Kurdish Issue. However, details of the message the DEM Party delegation conveyed following their visit to İmralı and their meeting with Öcalan have yet to be disclosed. The emergence of other issues in recent days seems to have temporarily slowed the flow of information and developments regarding this primary agenda. Nonetheless, it appears that after a second meeting with Öcalan, the government’s “roadmap” on this Issue will become somewhat clearer.
Meanwhile, a statement made by President Erdoğan on January 12 reaffirms that the AKP-MHP alliance is committed to a “solution-seeking” approach—though what exactly is meant by “solution” remains unclear. In his speech, Erdoğan stated: “Of course, we have not given up on seeking a solution. Following certain critical developments in our domestic politics and the region, a new window of opportunity has opened for our country. We do not believe it would be right to waste this opportunity.” However, while Turkey views Syria’s reconstruction period as an opportunity to advance its own vision for the region and address the Kurdish Issue, it is clear that capitalizing on this “opportunity” depends on Turkey’s ability to act in alignment with other key actors in the region, particularly the United States. As is well known, Turkey’s efforts to force the PKK to disarm are closely linked to its concerns over the Kurdish presence in northern Syria. Simply put, Turkey does not want an autonomous Kurdish entity in the new Syria that is “affiliated” with the PKK. However, unless Turkey can reach a reasonable compromise with the US and the new Syrian administration on this matter, it will likely find it difficult to completely eliminate the PKK.
Meanwhile, several significant developments have recently pushed the main agenda into the background. First came the shock of the Beşiktaş Municipality Mayor being dismissed and arrested on corruption charges, followed by the lawsuit seeking the dismissal and prosecution of the Istanbul Bar Association’s leadership. Then, the arrest of the leader of a small opposition party further stirred political tensions. Finally, the country was shaken by the devastating news of a fire at a hotel in Bolu-Kartalkaya, which resulted in the tragic deaths of 78 people.
The Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office has launched an investigation into the leadership of the Istanbul Bar Association on charges of “spreading terrorist propaganda” and “publicly disseminating misleading information,” citing a post shared on the Bar Association’s official social media account that allegedly praised two individuals accused of being PKK members. According to the prosecutor’s claims, the post in question spread misleading information by stating that these individuals were “killed due to their journalistic activities and identities” and that the state had committed war crimes. As part of the investigation, the statements of Bar Association President Prof. Dr. İbrahim Kaboğlu and board members were taken, and a request for permission to prosecute them was submitted to the Ministry of Justice. Meanwhile, a lawsuit was also filed at the Istanbul Civil Court of First Instance, seeking the removal of Prof. Kaboğlu and the board members from their positions and the appointment of a new administration.
This seemingly judicial operation against the Istanbul Bar Association unsurprisingly led almost everyone—except for AKP supporters—to believe that there was a political agenda behind it. This is hardly surprising, as a recent Venice Commission report confirmed that the judiciary in Erdoğan’s Turkey is not independent from the executive. Moreover, it is well known from the AKP-MHP government’s consistent actions over the years that they do not tolerate the existence of any initiative outside their control or the criticism of government policies—even by subject matter experts. The same fundamental logic that has driven the appointment of government trustees (kayyım) to opposition municipalities appears to be at play in this so-called judicial intervention. In other words, the government seems to be seeking to impose a form of “trustee rule” over the Istanbul Bar Association as well.
For quite some time, citizens have been justifiably disturbed by the AKP-MHP government’s normalization of lawlessness to such an extent that even the arrest of Ümit Özdağ, leader of the Zafer Party, known for his far-right views, on charges of insulting the President, sparked widespread public backlash. The intensity of the reactions, however, is largely due to the fact that Özdağ, as a political figure naturally expected to oppose government policies, was subjected to such treatment solely for his criticisms of the ruling power. Moreover, instead of being summoned in accordance with proper legal procedures, he was abruptly detained while dining at a restaurant. Regardless of whether the backlash stems from a principled commitment to consistency or not, it is unacceptable for the leader of a political party to be denied the freedom of expression that his role inherently necessitates. In this regard, it was appropriate for other parties to unite in criticizing Özdağ’s arrest.
Meanwhile, the entire country has been shaken by the devastating fire that broke out a few days ago at a hotel in Bolu-Kartalkaya, a renowned ski resort, claiming the lives of 78 people. Beyond being a national tragedy that plunged the nation into mourning, the disaster has also dominated the public agenda due to its political and legal ramifications. The dispute between the government (Ministry of Tourism) and the CHP-led Bolu Municipality over who is responsible for this catastrophe carries an important lesson. The uncertainty surrounding which party neglected its duty in inspecting the hotel—thus contributing to the tragedy—is alarming in itself.
Finally, let us touch on the National Security Policy Document (MGSB), which has resurfaced following the National Security Council’s statement issued after its January 22 meeting. As is well known, this so-called “supra-partisan” document, which lacks any constitutional basis and is drafted at the initiative of the military bureaucracy while bypassing Parliament, is inherently undemocratic. Despite this, the MGSB remains a highly significant document, as it effectively encodes the policies dictated by the doctrine of raison d’état—both domestically and in foreign affairs—that the state deems necessary to pursue.
The specific points mentioned in the National Security Council’s latest statement, while containing implicit references to domestic politics, primarily offer clues about the foreign policy strategies that Turkey is currently pursuing and intends to pursue. Though it was already anticipated, this statement confirms that the Republic of Turkey does not limit the scope of its legitimate use of force to the boundaries recognized as lawful under international law. On the contrary, Turkey considers itself authorized to conduct military operations to establish a broad sphere of influence that extends into its southern neighbors. So much so that this assumption of a sphere of influence not only reflects the audacity to impose a unitary structure on a pluralistic society like Syria, which is divided along ethnic, cultural, and religious lines, but also embodies an expansive claim that sees the elimination of all “terrorist” organizations beyond its borders—within “our region”—as its own mission.
In this Issue of Freedom Observer, A. Rıza Çoban highlights the risks to fundamental rights posed by the proposed Cybersecurity Law, which was recently approved by the relevant legislative committee in Parliament. Meanwhile, Ö. Faruk Şen, in his commentary touching on recent political developments, primarily analyzes the political implications of the Kartalkaya hotel fire. Lastly, Caner Gerek discusses the dangers of economic growth policies based on cost-benefit analysis, which prioritizes efficiency and productivity at the expense of human life and safety.
* Prof. Dr. Mustafa Erdoğan
What Does the Cybersecurity Law Proposal Introduce?
The Cybersecurity Law Proposal, submitted to the Turkish Grand National Assembly (TBMM) on January 10, 2025, addresses a highly significant issue and grants public authorities extensive powers to intervene in individual rights. However, despite its far-reaching implications, the proposal was rushed through the National Defense Committee and approved on January 15 without allowing for public debate. Additionally, no prior announcement was made before its submission to Parliament.
Legislation concerning both national security and individual data protection must undergo thorough public discussion to ensure a balanced and rights-respecting framework. Any legal regulation in this field should be in line with technological advancements, respect human rights, meet national security requirements, and include safeguards against the abuse of power. This necessitates extensive deliberation among political parties, civil society organizations, experts, and other stakeholders. However, not only was this proposal not subjected to such a preparatory process, but it also appears to have been pushed toward legislation without allowing for proper debate in Parliament.
Although the proposal was referred to the Justice Committee, the Plan and Budget Committee, and the Industry, Trade, Energy, Natural Resources, Information, and Technology Committee, in addition to the National Defense Committee, none of these secondary committees examined it or issued a report. This legislative approach is evidently neither democratic nor participatory.
The stated purpose of the law is to establish a comprehensive legal framework for cybersecurity and to define related policies and strategies through the creation of a Cybersecurity Council. Accordingly, the law establishes a Cybersecurity Council and regulates the duties and powers of the Cybersecurity Directorate (SGB), which was previously established by Presidential Decree.
Notably, Article 6 of the proposal grants the Directorate the authority to request and access all types of information and data within its jurisdiction. This data may include not only personal information, such as health and financial records but also logs of websites visited and digital content viewed or read by individuals. The proposal stipulates that the information, documents, data, and records obtained by the Directorate may be used for up to two years before being destroyed. However, the proposal does not include any safeguards to prevent the unnecessary collection, processing, or transfer of data, nor does it contain provisions to prevent abuse of such powers.
Additionally, the Directorate is granted the power to collect, store, analyze, and prepare reports based on log records from information systems and to share these reports with relevant institutions and organizations. The only safeguard provided in the law regarding data protection is a requirement that the data be deleted once its purpose has been fulfilled. However, the law does not establish any oversight mechanisms to ensure compliance with the deletion requirement, nor does it provide any safeguards against the misuse of collected data.
Additionally, the proposal mandates that public institutions, organizations, and critical infrastructure procure cybersecurity products, systems, and services only from cybersecurity experts and companies that have been authorized and certified by the Cybersecurity Directorate. Ensuring that this authorization and certification process is conducted objectively and impartially is of vital importance. Unfortunately, the law does not include any safeguards to guarantee such impartiality.
Furthermore, Article 9 of the proposal grants the President of the Directorate the authority to order searches, data copying, and seizures in private residences, workplaces, and non-public spaces in cases where delays might be deemed harmful. These actions are subject to subsequent judicial approval, with a requirement that the collected data be destroyed if a judge refuses to authorize the operation. However, considering the state of the judiciary in general, and particularly the Criminal Peace Judgeships, the effectiveness of this safeguard is highly questionable. Moreover, when it comes to public institutions, even judicial approval is not required for searches and seizures. Such provisions, which grant authorities the power to intervene in individuals’ private lives, personal data, and homes, clearly violate constitutional rights and are unquestionably unconstitutional.
The proposal also introduces new criminal offenses. In this context, individuals who fail to provide the information requested by the Directorate, carry out cyberattacks, violate confidentiality obligations, or trade data obtained through cyber leaks will be subject to criminal penalties. Additionally, in a particularly problematic provision, the law criminalizes activities that aim to create the perception of a cyber leak, even if no actual data breach has occurred, thereby targeting individuals or institutions. While the phrase “creating a perception” was later amended in the Committee to “creating content as if a data breach had occurred,” it is evident that this provision poses a serious threat to press freedom.
Given these flaws, the proposal should be withdrawn and replaced with a law that is developed through a comprehensive participatory process and includes adequate safeguards against violations of fundamental rights.
* Doç. Dr. Ali Rıza Çoban – Constitutional Lawyer
Grand Kartal Hotel, State Capacity, and Government Priorities
We have left behind an eventful two weeks. First, the government launched a campaign of detentions, arrests, and trustee appointments targeting certain opposition politicians and municipalities, with Ekrem İmamoğlu as the ultimate target. Beşiktaş Mayor Rıza Akpolat was arrested. CHP Youth Branch Chairman Cem Aydın was detained and later released after questioning. Meanwhile, Zafer Party Chairman Ümit Özdağ was arrested at a restaurant in Ankara for allegedly insulting the President during a speech in Antalya. He was transferred to Istanbul, and two days later, he was detained again—this time on charges of inciting hatred and enmity.
Amid this political turmoil, a fire at the Grand Kartal Hotel in Kartalkaya claimed the lives of 79 citizens. The fact that the fire occurred during the semester holiday, with a high number of children staying at the hotel, only deepened the tragedy. Nearly half of the victims were under 18.
The intense polarization and political rhetoric that had reached a peak before the fire quickly shifted focus in its immediate aftermath. The question “Who is responsible?” became not just a debate on social media but also the focal point of a blame game among state institutions. CHP’s Bolu Mayor Tanju Özcan stated that the hotel was located outside the municipal jurisdiction. Minister of Culture and Tourism Mehmet Nuri Ersoy countered, claiming that the hotel had received a fire safety certificate from the fire department. However, Özcan denied this claim, stating that an inspection was conducted in December 2024 following the hotel’s application and that multiple fire safety deficiencies were identified. However, since the hotel later withdrew its application, the municipality was legally unable to take further action. According to Özcan, the hotel subsequently obtained approval from a ministry-certified company just a few days later. Hotel owner Halit Ergül, in his testimony, claimed that the Ministry of Tourism inspected the hotel on December 15, 2024, and found issues with doors but did not identify any fire safety deficiencies. As of the writing of this article, 19 individuals, including the deputy mayor, have been detained in connection with the fire.
How meaningful are these discussions after 78 people have already lost their lives? Of course, identifying those responsible and ensuring they receive the appropriate punishment is crucial. Administrative law experts have provided clear opinions on the division of responsibility in this debate. However, there is also widespread and justified public skepticism about whether anyone will actually be held accountable.
This disaster has highlighted two major shortcomings in the country: the need for fair trials and the lack of state capacity. The administration is responsible for preventing such tragedies through regulatory measures, administrative actions, and inspections. Ensuring citizen safety is not just an incidental duty of the state—it is its primary, non-partisan responsibility, an essential element of its very existence. Can a state that fails to enforce its own laws still be called a state?
Monopolizing the use of force is a necessary but insufficient condition for being a state. In Turkey, those in power are particularly fond of the state’s monopoly on violence, yet they fail to recognize that when this monopoly ceases to be a means of establishing order and instead becomes a tool for eliminating political opponents, the state gradually loses its legitimacy. At the end of the day, we are faced with a stark contradiction: an administration and a judiciary that demonstrate immediate capacity and resolve to launch an investigation against an opposition politician within an hour of a speech yet take no concrete steps to identify the failure of a fire alarm system in a hotel accommodating hundreds of people.
So what should the true priorities of a state, an administration, and a government be? How should existing state capacity be utilized? Should it be used to imprison opposition politicians, or to ensure the safety of citizens?
* Dr. Ömer Faruk Şen– Missouri University
Cost Minimization and the Devaluation of Human Life
One of the fundamental drivers of economic growth is the increase in productivity. Higher productivity allows the same population to produce more goods and services, leading to greater consumption and, consequently, higher levels of welfare. In this regard, renowned economist Paul Krugman famously emphasized the significance of productivity with his well-known statement:
“Productivity isn’t everything, but in the long run, it is almost everything. A country’s ability to improve its standard of living over time depends almost entirely on its ability to raise output per worker.”
However, when efforts to enhance productivity and drive economic growth are rushed or poorly executed, or when productivity and growth cease to be mere tools and instead become ultimate goals, human life is often pushed into the background, leading to tragic consequences. The Kartalkaya fire disaster and the events preceding it serve as the latest example of this phenomenon.
In the 1970s, disabled individuals in the United States gained equal access rights to federally funded services, including public transportation. However, despite these legal advancements, New York City’s subway system and many others failed to provide necessary accessibility measures for disabled passengers. Economists close to President Jimmy Carter dismissed such investments as unnecessary, arguing that cost-benefit analysis showed that the costs of these accommodations far outweighed the benefits (1).
Although cost-benefit analysis is a widely used tool in economics to improve efficiency, it can sometimes evolve into a perspective that prioritizes costs over human well-being. In today’s world, the focus on productivity growth has shifted from producing more with the same cost to producing the same output at a lower cost, placing greater emphasis on cost minimization. While cost minimization contributes significantly to efficiency, it also gradually leads to the neglect of intangible and unquantifiable costs.
At extreme levels, this perspective can even relegate human life to a secondary concern—because protecting human life also incurs monetary costs. From a purely financial standpoint, avoiding these costs can lead to cheaper production. Furthermore, the likelihood of a disaster occurring due to neglected safety measures is often perceived as low, meaning the benefit of preventative action is seen as insignificant or nonexistent.
This mindset is encapsulated perfectly in a scene from the documentary American Factory, where a Chinese businessman opening a factory in the US is asked whether an outdoor opening ceremony is a good idea, given the possibility of rain. His response?
“It won’t rain.”
In an economy where increasing production and economic growth are prioritized, cost-benefit analysis naturally finds its place. When governments adopt and focus on this economic approach, they tend to overestimate the benefits of growth while viewing the protection of human life as a cost that needs to be minimized. As a result, they introduce regulations that prioritize economic growth.
Within this framework, the modern state, which holds the authority to inspect companies, regulates—or rather, neglects—these inspections in a way that promotes growth. Meanwhile, the public, which has delegated the duty of oversight to the state, naturally assumes that the goods and services they receive do not require additional scrutiny. However, this combination of cost minimization, delegation of oversight, and growth-focused policies ultimately invites disasters.
The recent death of a citizen poisoned by a baked potato, the previous week’s fatal case of food poisoning from chicken, and the Kartalkaya hotel fire that claimed 79 lives are all tragic examples of how prioritizing cost and efficiency over safety leads to loss of life. Similarly, the climate crisis—the most pressing global Issue of our era—is exacerbated by factories that pollute the environment while society at large bears the cost, and they alone reap the benefits. This is yet another consequence of combining cost-benefit analysis with a lack of regulation.
From this perspective, when the market system fails to function properly, regulatory institutions are expected to intervene and oversee companies. However, the obsession with economic growth weakens regulatory oversight in an effort to facilitate expansion. This short-term profit-driven approach, shared by both businesses and policymakers, jeopardizes long-term stability and public safety, leading to tragedies like those we have witnessed.
While skepticism toward market regulations and the argument that many regulations are unnecessary are valid, and while economic growth remains essential for increasing prosperity, deregulation should not come at the expense of fundamental rights—especially the right to life and safety.
* Dr. Caner Gerek
1 Berman, Elizabeth P. (2022). Thinking Like an Economist: How Efficiency Replaced Equality in US Public Policy, 2023.
