The institutionalization of feminist activism in Turkey enabled feminist women to put pressure on the governments to formulate new policies to protect women’s rights and reduce discrimination against women. As stated above, in the late 1980s, feminist activists organized protest demonstrations and nationwide campaigns to attract public attention to domestic violence and discrimination against women. Their first notable achievement was the annulment of aforementioned Article 438 of the Penal Code that reduced sentence for rapists if the victim of rape was a sex worker (cf. Chapter 5). In 1989, the Constitutional Court, as a response to an appeal of a local judge, ruled that Article 438 was not violating the equality clause of the Constitution because this Article aimed to protect “respectable women” (Arat 1994; Ertürk 2006).
Accordingly, feminist activists embarked upon a campaign for the annulment of this article, which attracted the media’s attention and caused a broad public outcry. In 1990, the Turkish Parliament had to abolish Article 438 due to the push of the public debate (Anıl et al. 2002; Arat 1994; Ertürk 2006). Likewise, feminist activists lobbied for the annulment of Article 159 of the Civil Code, which stipulated that women had to obtain their husbands’ permission to work (cf.
Chapter 5). In 1992, the Constitutional Court annulled Article 159 (Anıl et al. 2002; Arat 2008;
Marshall 2009).
Meanwhile, feminist organizations preferred to distance themselves from the Turkish state because they considered the state to be perpetuating the patriarchal division of labor within society and family (Arat 1994: 244). However, in the second half of the 1990s, feminists gradually increased their dialogue and cooperation with the state through the newly formed state’s women’s machinery, KSSGM (Altınay and Arat 2009; Marshall 2009). First, it was because
132
feminist bureaucrats filled the ranks of KSSGM and began to act more responsive to women’s needs, and this eased the tension between feminists and the state apparatus (Arat 2008: 399).
Second, influential Turkish feminist scholars emphasized the importance of the institutionalization of gender policies under a state’s agency that would help legitimize the demands of women’s movement (Acuner 2007; Ertürk 2006). Feminist activists acknowledged that they can influence state policies relating to women’s lives through KSSGM. Thanks to KSSGM, feminist CSOs could also strengthen their national and international networks and push the state to take responsibility for providing equality between women and men (Kardam and Ertürk 1999).
Clearly, the institutionalization of feminist activism contributed to strengthening the fight against domestic violence. Feminist organizations began to establish women’s shelters and to convince municipalities to open counseling centers and women’s shelters. Purple Roof, for instance, attempted to establish women’s shelters in cooperation with two different district municipalities in Istanbul (Bakirköy and Şişli). In September 1990, both municipalities opened women’s shelters, but Purple Roof was not included in the management (Işık 2007: 63).97 In 1993, the first independent women’s shelter was opened by the ‘Women’s Solidarity Foundation’
(Kadın Dayanışma Vakfı) in Ankara, and in 1995 by Purple Roof in Istanbul. But feminists continuously underlined the state’s responsibility in providing secure protection for women and children who have been exposed to violence. As mentioned in Chapter 5, from the mid-1990s on, the Turkish state began to establish ‘guest houses’ for women and children.
Furthermore, feminist CSOs, along with Kemalist women’s CSOs, stressed the importance of eliminating the discriminatory laws in the Civil Code and the Turkish Penal Code. The
‘Association of Turkish Jurist Women’ (Türk Hukukçu Kadınlar Derneği),proposed a draft named the ‘Amendment and Annulment of some Articles in the Civil Code’. In 1992, the ‘Centre for Research and Implementation of Women’s Issues’ at the Istanbul University initiated a petition campaign to support this draft proposal (Arat 2010a: 240). Purple Roof, together with the feminist ‘Women’s Library and Information Centre’, supported this campaign and gathered 120,000 signatures (Arat 2008: 402). In 1994, WWHR joined this campaign and mobilized an
97 These women’s shelters were the first women’s shelters in Turkey. However, when the governing municipality lost elections in 1994, these two shelters were shut down, see further: Işık (2007).
133
international support for the implementation of full equality in the Civil Code.98 Although the state has not reacted to this campaign, Purple Roof and WWHR kept the issue of amending the Civil Code on public debates. By drawing the media’s attention to this campaign, feminist CSOs could maintain the pressure on the Turkish state (Marshall 2009: 363).
During the 1990s, the international gender agenda positively influenced the struggle of feminist CSOs for the empowerment of women. Feminist CSOs often referred to Turkey’s CEDAW obligations in negotiating with the state and pointed out the shortcomings in the legal framework (Arat 2008; Marshall 2009). Signatory states like Turkey, which have ratified or acceded to the CEDAW treaty, are committed, at least every four years, to submit national reports on measures they have taken to comply with the treaty obligations.99 For instance, the second and third CEDAW periodic report of Turkey (1997) stated that twenty-nine articles in the Penal Code did not comply with the CEDAW requirements. The CEDAW agreement clearly played an important role in pushing the Turkish state to eliminate discrimination against women.
Moreover, after the 1995 UN ‘World Conference on Women’ in Beijing, the UN began to emphasize its determination to promote “women’s rights as human rights” and to combat violence against women worldwide (Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, 1995, Art. 14).
The UN’s Beijing Declaration positively affected organized women’s efforts to strengthen women’s rights worldwide. Through the UN’s conferences, feminist CSOs in Turkey, and also other women’s groups, have found the opportunity to exchange information and experiences with women activists from different parts of the world and began to frame their demands as globally accepted norms in women’s rights.
The most important institutional development in the 1990s was the enactment of the law regarding women’s protection from domestic violence. As a result of the intensive lobbying activities of feminist and Kemalist CSOs and the pressure from the KSSGM, the government enacted the ‘Law on the Protection of the Family’ (No. 4320) in January 1998, and institutionalized thereby state’s responsibility in protecting women from domestic violence (cf.
Chapter 5). However, feminist CSOs highlighted the problems in the implementation of Law 4320 and pointed to the ignorance of judicial personnel. They continued their lobbying activities for
98 http://www.wwhr.org/category/the-campaign-for-full-gender-equality-in-the-civil-code (rev. 21.11.2014)
99 http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/reports.htm (rev. 20.01.2014)
134
revision of several provisions regarding discrimination against women. In 1999, Turkey lifted its reservations to Articles 15 and 16 of the CEDAW treaty that oblige signatory parties of the CEDAW agreement to ensure women’s equality with men before the law (CEDAW 2003: 45).
In sum, the institutionalization of feminist activism in the 1990s helped feminist women establish counseling centers and women’s shelters, and thus strengthen the struggle against domestic violence against women (Işık 2007: 52). Feminist CSOs defied patriarchal traditions, publicly criticized the male-domination within Turkish society and culture, and brought about new perspectives on women’s rights in Turkey. Their persistence in the struggle against women’s subordinate status, coupled with the international pressure exerted by the UN institutions working on women’s empowerment, forced the Turkish state to take effective measures to improve women’s status in Turkey.
By the end of the 1990s, feminist women gained an important opportunity for advancing women’s rights. As discussed in Chapter 4, Turkey’s prospect of EU membership stimulated an extensive political reform process in Turkey. During the political reform process, organized women in general profited from the liberalized political arena, which included not only themselves and the state, but also actors such as EU institutions and European CSOs in policy-making processes (Kancı et al. 2010: 8). They were encouraged to form stronger links with groups such as the European’s Women Lobby (EWL)100 and the European Women Lawyer’s Association (Uçar 2009: 5). This European linkage increased the bargaining capacity of women’s CSOs in decision-making processes regarding gender policies. Accordingly, feminist CSOs intensified their sustained efforts to amend the Civil Code.
Reforming the Civil Code
Since the mid-1980s, feminist activists have advocated reforming the Civil Code. They supported the draft proposals prepared by legal experts from Kemalist women’s CSOs (Arat 2008, 2010a).
For instance, in 1994, WWHR initiated a campaign supporting the new draft of the Civil Code prepared by a parliamentary commission and demanded full equality for women in the Code (Anıl et al. 2002: 6). However, none of the drafts could become law until Turkey began to
100 The EWL is the largest umbrella organization of women’s associations in the EU, which includes more than 2,500 organizations and works to promote women’s rights and gender equality.
135
implement political reforms to become an EU member. In April 2000, the Turkish Parliament began discussing a new draft for the Civil Code (Arat 2010a: 240). Subsequently, WWHR, together with a group of feminist organizations, created a mailing list (Kadın Kurultayı) to discuss the draft proposal among each other and to monitor the process of amending the Civil Code. Feminists sought to attract public’s attention to this process through the printed and broadcast media.
Meanwhile, the Justice Commission of the Parliament, which was responsible for amending the Civil Code, invited legal experts from several women’s rights organizations to its working committee.
During amending the Civil Code, the most contentious issue between women’s CSOs and the lawmakers from the Justice Commission was the property sharing in case of divorce.
Feminist and Kemalist women’s CSOs demanded that all property acquired during marriage shall be shared equally, which would also recognize the unpaid contributions of women to the household (Ertürk 2006: 100). As mentioned in Chapter 5, this proposal met a strong resistance from the religious-conservative and nationalist MPs of the Justice Commission, and they rejected the proposal in March 2001 (Anıl et al. 2002: 7). Subsequently, WWHR initiated a nationwide coalition in which around 120 women’s CSOs from different regions came together to reverse this development (Ilkkaracan 2007: 254). WWHR and Purple Roof frequently issued press releases to push the draft proposal. Eleven women’s organizations, including WWHR, visited the Turkish Parliament and lobbied the key MPs in the Justice Commission to keep the draft law on ‘property sharing after divorce’ in the proposal (Arat 2010a: 241). Some other feminist activists opted for unconventional forms of protests, such as trekking and climbing, to have the law on property sharing amended (Ibid.). Finally, the Justice Commission accepted the proposal on property sharing and proposed the whole new draft bill for the Civil Code to the Parliament. The new Civil Code became effective on 1 January 2002. It abolished finally the supremacy of men in marriage and established equality of rights and obligations between spouses (cf. Chapter 5). Although women CSOs succeeded in getting the law on equal property sharing through the Turkish Parliament, it was only applicable for the marriages which took place after the renewal of the Code.
In sum, reforming the Civil Code was a major step in strengthening women’s rights and eliminating discrimination against women, despite its shortcomings. Some scholars regard the
136
renewal of the Civil Code as the EU’s successful agenda in persuading the Turkish government to meet the accession criteria (Kubicek 2005; Müftüler-Baç 2005). But other scholars and feminist activists argue that during the reform process the EU might have acted as a catalyst, but women CSOs, in particular feminist and Kemalist CSOs, played an essential role in pressuring the state for making amendments to the Civil Code (Anıl et. al 2002; Arat 2008, 2010a; Çoşar and Onbaşi 2008; Ertürk 2006; Marshall 2009). Certainly, many women’s rights organizations saw the EU accession process as an impetus for pressuring the Turkish state to implement necessary laws for achieving gender equality (Ergun 2010: 517). However, they stressed that their “sustained”
(Marshall 2009) advocacy efforts and their commitment to bargain pushed the Turkish government to amend the Civil Code.