There are proven ways to address the widescale abuses enacted by Turkish authorities since a failed coup in July 2016. But all of them require political will and civic energy.
Emre Turkut
Several potential solutions present themselves, each with distinct strengths, rationales, and degrees of feasibility.
At the ideal end of the spectrum lies the establishment of a transitional justice mechanism, drawing on the power-sharing and truth-recovery models from the Northern Ireland peace process, South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and Colombia’s special jurisdiction for accountability for the FARC peace negotiations.
Such a mechanism could take the form of a Parliamentary Commission, guided by post-2016 ECtHR and UN decisions, and supported by genuine political dialogue.
This approach would go beyond technical solutions by providing public acknowledgment of harms, victim participation, reparations, and recommendations for institutional reform. Though politically challenging and time-consuming, it represents the most morally sound and socially sustainable path forward.
In this context, Turkey’s Terror-Free Turkey initiative, launched in 2024, presents a significant and timely opportunity.
Designed to disarm the militant Kurdistan Workers’ Party, PKK, and facilitate the reintegration of its members into society, the process aims to advance normalisation efforts in the 40-year long Kurdish problem in the country.
Just as post-coup emergency measures once grouped disparate threats under a single terrorism banner, the KHK problem should now be integrated into this same holistic framework of transitional justice, de-securitisation, and social healing.
A highly effective middle path involves several legislative acts drawing on models of comprehensive reparation, rehabilitation, and retrial without entering a full-scale transitional justice process.
The Turkish Parliament could, for example, enact a dedicated law that retroactively annuls the most egregious KHK measures in cases lacking any evidence of violent crime, while mandating automatic reinstatement for those acquitted or never charged.
Such judicial rehabilitation models have been successfully implemented in post-communist transitions in countries like Germany, Czechia, and Poland, where victims of politically motivated persecution received annulment of unjust decisions, reinstatement, and various forms of compensation.
An effective but not ideal option would be the enactment of an amnesty law. Amnesty is one of the most frequently used tools in transitional and post-conflict settings both in Turkey and worldwide. While highly effective in ending immediate suffering and annulling the legal and administrative consequences of KHK dismissals for large numbers of people, reducing social tension, this approach falls short of the ideal because it may bypass full truth-telling, victim acknowledgment, and institutional accountability.
Ultimately, bridging the gap between documented violations and effective remedies will require genuine political will and only a comprehensive and courageous response can close this painful chapter and rebuild trust in Turkish democracy.
A decade on, the KHK chapter reveals both the fragility and potential of Turkish institutions.
The violations are well documented, the human suffering is real and the moral consensus in society is ripening. What’s needed now is political will and civic energy to close this wound.
Potential solutions exist. The question now is whether the necessary courage and determination will emerge before another decade passes.
History will judge not just the emergency decrees of 2016, but the choices made in 2026 and beyond.
Dr. Emre Turkut is an international law scholar, legal consultant and a former visiting researcher at the European Court of Human Rights.
The opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of BIRN.
