Analysis
August 31, 2009
Summary: The World Gender Gap
Index of 2008 ranked Turkey 123rd
of 130 countries. Turkey’s action—or
inaction—regarding female partici-
pation in local politics is crucial to
improving the place of women in
Turkish society, and the place of Tur-
key in the world. Mechanisms must
be implemented to bring about con-
crete changes for the role of women
in public life. Establishing gender
quotas is one approach to increas-
ing female participation in Turkish
politics. It is necessary to shift from
the notion of “equality of opportu-
nity” to “equality of result” based on
the realization that even when formal
barriers are removed, deep-rooted
societal barriers to women’s political
participation need to be temporarily
compensated for.
Offices
Washington, DC • Berlin • Bratislava • Paris
Brussels • Belgrade • Ankara • Bucharest
www.gmfus.org
Women in Turkey—What is on Paper,
What is in Practice?
by Nigar Göksel*
ISTANBUL — Questions about women’s
status in Turkey are often placed at the
heart of debates about whether Turkey
belongs to the West or to the East. A
vibrant woman’s movement and a
relatively recent enshrinement of gender
equality in the penal and civil codes of
Turkey have marked progress in wom-
en’s rights. However, like many other
questions pertaining to the rule of law
in Turkey, stronger institutional mecha-
nisms are needed to enforce and moni-
tor implementation of rights across the
country. Initiatives carried out to com-
bat domestic violence and educate girls
until the age of 15 are very important
for basic human rights, however they are
not enough to bring about real change in
the role of women in public life.
As a result of the March 2009 local
elections, only 15 of the approximately
900 district mayors and two of the 81
provincial and metropolitan mayors in
Turkey are women. The reason, represen-
tatives of the leading political parties in
Turkey say, is that in much of the country
voters are more likely to vote for a man,
and therefore fielding a female candidate
is not politically expedient. The parties
also allege that it is difficult to find quali-
fied women in much of Anatolia.
Eleven out the 15 women district
mayors—73 percent—and one of the two
province mayors, are of the Kurdish Party,
DTP. These women were elected in prov-
*
Nigar Goksel is a senior analyst at the European Stability Initiative and editor-in-chief of Turkish Policy Quarterly. The views ex-
pressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of GMF or those of the European Stability Initiative.
inces of southeast Anatolia like Hakkari,
Urfa, and Şırnak, which can be among
the most inhospitable districts of Turkey
from a women’s perspective. The deep
conservatism in these regions has been
sustained by large families, quasi-feudal
social structures, high female illiteracy
rates, early marriages, and customs based
on protecting men’s honor. If women can
participate in local politics this actively
in these regions, there are clearly reasons
beyond the nature of constituents or the
qualifications of female candidates that
cause other parties to have so few women
representatives in the rest of the country.
In terms of concrete benefits to women
across Turkey, the local level is critical.
That is where the implementation or
violation of laws occurs and where strong
female role models will have the greatest
impact on community life.
Participation in local politics is not the
only area where women are lagging far
behind men in Turkey. Indeed, although
the rate of female participation in local
politics is not even factored into the
World Economic Forum’s Gender Gap
Index of 2008, Turkey is ranked 123rd out
of 130 countries—behind Syria and Iran,
two neighbors that are known for their
discriminatory gender laws. Though the
last few years have witnessed progress in
rates of girls’ primary school attendance,
and the number of women elected to
parliament has reached 9 percent for
the first time, what drags Turkey’s rank
Analysis
down so low in the Index is “women’s economic participation
and opportunity.” The 2008 EU Progress Report shows women’s
participation in the Turkish work force at 24.8 percent. In 2005,
ESI wrote of Kayseri, a province in Central Anatolia with
indicators around Turkey’s averages, that “the employment rate
of women is only 37 percent. Of these, the vast majority are in
agriculture.” 1 Around 90 percent of women engaged in agricul-
tural labor are unpaid family workers involved in subsistence
agricultural activity. However, unlike housewives, they appear
in state statistics as active in the labor force. And although 24.8
percent of women are employed, many are not actually paid.
This is why figures of urban employment of women dropped
to around 18 percent. 2
Women without any source of income often lack the ability to take
advantage of the legal opportunities available to them. Moreover,
given the large proportion of informal economy, many men can
avert payments of alimony that would be obligatory by law if their
income were registered. There has been intense debate in Turkey
about “neighborhood pressure” on women to conform to tradi-
tional roles. Breaking out of repressively close-knit environments
is only an option for women who can sustain their livelihood
without being dependent on their families.
Quota a la turca
The Prime Minister of Turkey has a strong aversion to sug-
gestions of gender quotas. In November 2008, he once again
explained his stance on this issue: “With forcibly imposed means
like the quota, the desired results can not be reached. We evaluate
the implementation of quotas as disrespectful to women. Imple-
menting a quota confines women to men’s offering. In other
words, women get into the parliament because men grant it to
them. This is unacceptable. ”3
It is on the basis of this approach that in March 2009, what had
been envisioned as a parliamentary gender equality commission
was enacted as a “Women and Men Equal Opportunities Com-
mission, because ‘equal opportunity’ does not aim to eliminate
already present inequalities but prescribes ‘equal treatment’ poli-
cies to all sides, it protects present inequalities,” stated one of the
women’s organizations that has been active in lobbying for the
establishment of this commission for almost a decade. 4
1
ESI Report (2005). “Islamic Calvinists: Change and Conservatism in Central Anatolia.”
Retrieved at: www.esiweb.org
2
World Bank (April 2006). “Turkey Labor Market Study Summary.”
3
“The quota is a disrespect to women.” Yeni Şafak daily, November 28, 2008.
4
Pınar İlkkaracan. Women for Women’s Human Rights-New Ways (WWHR).
Over 100 countries, ranging from Mozambique to Belgium, have
adopted some form of gender-based quota for more balanced
legislative representation. This is a result of a shift from the no-
tion of “equality of opportunity” to “equality of result” based
on the realization that even when formal barriers are removed,
deep-rooted societal barriers to women’s political participa-
tion need to be temporarily compensated for. Turkish society is
indeed one of those societies—structurally and culturally.
In fact, the Justice and Development Party (AKP) itself recog-
nizes that equal opportunity will not suffice, and practices forms
of positive discrimination to ‘even the playing field.’ The govern-
ment boasts special programs aimed to ensure that families send
their daughters to primary school—deemed necessary even
though girls’ attending primary school has been mandatory
since the founding of the Republic. Moreover, when explaining
the changes to the penal code in 2004 that aggravate the penalties
imposed for certain forms of honor crimes, AKP MP’s them-
selves explain that this was necessary to ensure that the penalties
for such crimes are heavy enough to compensate for the fact that
these crimes are sanctioned by cultural norms in segments of the
society. These are positive steps. The patriarchal political scene of
Ankara needs to be approached with the same progressive logic.
In the run-up to the March 2009 local elections, Prime Minis-
ter Erdogan reprimanded local AKP branches that submitted
municipal council candidate lists that did not include women.
Confronted with the explanation that there was not a demand
from women to enter politics, he lashed back saying “I do not
accept empty words about there not being willing candidates;
if need be you will go find them.”5 The numbers apparently
increased to the desired level thereafter—granted by the Prime
Minister himself rather than an institutionalized gender-quota
system. Is this not an a la turca form of quota?
5
Yurdakul Şimşek. “The Prime Ministers scolding about women worked,” Radikal Daily,
February 19, 2009.