Control and Accountability in Turkish Public Administration

The need for oversight in public administration can be summed up under three headings:

• to ensure that public officials make the right decisions and to use their discretionary powers in the public interest
• to ensure that the powers granted by the state to public officials are used within the limits of the law and in an impartial, fair, and equal manner that respects human rights
• to ensure that the financial source of public expenditure which comes from citizens’ taxes is used efficiently and effectively in accordance with public service requirements

Accountability has the following three main goals.

• to prevent the abuse of public authority,
• to ensure compliance with the rules of law and public service values in the use of public resources,
• to ensure continuous improvement in public administration

Strengthened accountability offers the following:

1. Commitment to democracy: Makes the closed bureaucratic and hierarchical structure of public administration more transparent and open.
2. Commitment to justice: Ensures that abuse of public powers can be challenged and prosecuted by independent bodies.
3. Commitment to ethical behaviour: Supervision and oversight encourage public administrators and public officials to behave orderly and properly.
4. Performance commitment: Improves the quality of public services.

Political control is the control and oversight power that political institutions (the legislature and executive) and elected representatives (deputies) have over public administration.

In parliamentary government systems, accountability operates through a chain of responsibility: public administration is responsible to the government; the government is responsible to the parliament; and the parliament is responsible to the people. Note that sovereignty in democracies ultimately belongs to the people. In parliamentary democratic systems, the people delegate their sovereignty to the parliament by electing their representatives (deputies) through elections.

The legislature consists of representatives elected by the people. In Türkiye, the legislature is The Grand National Assembly of Türkiye (GNAT).

The legislature has three main functions: “law-making,” “supervising the executive branch,” and “adopting the state budget.”

Article 98 of the Constitution outlines the mechanisms for obtaining information and exercising oversight over the executive branch and administration: parliamentary inquiry, general debate, parliamentary investigation, and written questions.

After the 2017 Constitutional Amendment”, (1) obtaining information through oral questions was abolished. Oral questions (sözlü soru) used to be answered in person and verbally by the Prime Minister or the relevant minister during the plenary session of the GNAT. (2) The mechanism of vote of no confidence (gensoru) was repealed. The vote of no confidence was the main control mechanism of the GNAT over the executive. A vote of no confidence is a general debate in Parliament to remove the government or a minister. Thus, a vote of no confidence is a means of control that leads to the political responsibility of the Council of Ministers or a minister. Thus, ministers are no longer responsible to the GNAT. They are accountable to the President. Ministers are appointed and dismissed by the President. After the 2017 constitutional amendment, it is not possible for a minister to be dismissed by a vote of no confidence.

No. There are also mechanisms that act upon the application of citizens. Two committees at the GNAT stand out: the Petition Committee and the Human Rights Inquiry Committee.

Supervision of public administration within itself is called administrative control. In other words, administrative control is the supervision of the administration not by the legislature and the judiciary, but by hierarchical superiors within the organization or by other public authorities.

There are two types of administrative control: internal control and external control. Self-supervision of a public organization is called internal control. In other words, internal controls are those that are fitted into the administrative machinery itself. External control, on the other hand, operates from outside. Supervision by another public authority is called external control.

The close supervision and control of superiors over their subordinates within an organization is called hierarchical control. Hierarchical control is an authority to ensure the integrity of a public organization within itself.

The powers that the superior has over the actions of the subordinates can be listed as follows:

• The superior always has the authority to supervise her/his subordinates.
• The superior can give orders and instructions to the subordinate.
• The superior also has the authority to supervise after the action is taken by the subordinate.
• The superior can supervise the subordinate’s actions in terms of both legality and compliance with needs and service requirements.
• As a result of hierarchical control, the superior has the authority to approve, cancel, change, terminate, or delay the subordinate’s actions. However, the superior cannot take the place of the subordinate and take decisions on matters that fall under the subordinate’s duties.

Administrative tutelage (idari vesayet) is the supervision of decentralized administrations by the central administration within the limits stipulated by law. It is a tool developed to ensure that public institutions work in harmony as a whole, in accordance with the principle of the integrity of the administration. In this context, central administration has the authority to supervise local administrations and functionally decentralized administrations in order to eliminate some of the drawbacks of decentralization.

While hierarchical control is a general authority, administrative tutelage is an exceptional authority. In other words, the autonomy of decentralized administrations is the general rule, while administrative tutelage over them is the exceptional one. Therefore, unless expressly designated by laws, central administration cannot exercise administrative tutelage over decentralized administrations. Administrative tutelage, then, must be exercised by central administration as long as laws give permission and in a manner prescribed by laws.  

In democratic states governed by law, public administration is required to operate within the boundaries of the law. Judicial oversight serves as one of the most effective mechanisms to uphold the accountability and regulation of public administration. It involves the examination of administrative actions and decisions by independent courts. The primary aim of judicial oversight is to safeguard citizens’ rights and freedoms by ensuring that administrative acts and decisions comply with the law. For this purpose, public administration is subject to judicial review, and individuals have the right to seek legal recourse against any administrative acts or decisions.

Article 138 of the Constitution outlines the principles of judicial independence as follows:

• Judges are independent in performing their duties.
• Judges render decisions based on the Constitution, laws, and their own convictions aligned with the law.
• No organ, authority, office or individual may give orders or directives to courts or judges regarding the exercise of judicial power.
• The Legislative Assembly cannot pose questions, conduct debates, or make statements concerning the exercise of judicial authority over ongoing cases.
• Legislative and executive bodies, as well as the administration, must comply with court decisions, without altering or delaying their execution in any way.

The Ombudsman handles complaints of the citizens regarding public administration and, as a result of the examination and investigation, evaluates the attitude and practice of the administration regarding each specific case. It reveals the poorly functioning aspects and inadequacies of the administration and makes recommendations. Thus, the Ombudsman supervises the administration and facilitates the resolution of disputes between the citizens and the administration.

The duties and responsibilities of the Ombudsman Institution are described in Article 5 of Law No. 6328 adopted on 14 May, 2012 as follows: “The institution shall be responsible for examining, investigating, and submitting recommendations to the administration with regard to all sorts of acts and actions as well as attitudes and behaviours of the administration upon complaint on the functioning of the administration within the framework of an understanding of human rights-based justice and in the aspect of legality and conformity with principles of fairness.”