Regulations in the stock market and freedoms
TARHAN ERDEMOn Feb. 11, the communiqué on the “Principles Regarding Determination and Application of Corporate Governance Principles” (which I shall henceforth refer to as “Communiqué 57”) was published in the Official Gazette.
Communiqué 57 was a good example that shed light on the roots of the latest problem of calling members of the National Intelligence Organization (MİT) to testify, showed that making laws is not an easy task and demonstrated why the Kurdish issue cannot be solved.
Communiqué 57 is actually the one that replaces Communiqué 56 (Principles Regarding Determination and Application of Corporate Governance Principles), published in the Official Gazette on Dec. 30, 2011. In fact, Communiqué 56 had abrogated Communiqué 54.
The Capital Markets Board (SPK) that has issued these communiqués has amended the communiqué it issued last October, then renewed it in one and a half months, then annulled it after another one and a half months.
How is that so? Can there be three communiqués on the same topic in three months? The board stays at its place intact; more importantly, the relevant minister also keeps his position and did not consider resigning.
This is the reason I am writing, “It is not easy to issue laws and regulations.”
In the past, there was a “board of motions” and its duty was not to correct the “provision” of motions but their “wording.” One of the duties of legal advisors in ministries was that.
Let’s take a look at the topic of the communiqués:
The communiqués determine the “corporate governance” principles of companies open to the public. One of the reasons why there is a need to make such an arrangement should be to protect the rights of small shareholders and to prevent major shareholders to draw money from the company more than they are entitled to.
Here, instead of a fine line, there is a thick border; and that is restricting the “freedom of enterprise.”
The contents of Communiqué 57 are not in compliance with the essential economic preferences in the government program.
While the selection and audit of the “independent member” belongs to the company itself in Communiqué 54, the SPK intervenes in Communiqué 56 and, in the latest Communiqué 57, selection and auditing go to the government by favor of the board.
“Freedom” cannot be defined with rules that are bent this way or that way as wished depending on the time and on the relevant people affected. Freedom of enterprise is seriously restricted with the latest communiqué if not totally revoked.
Our administration system and mechanisms were centralized with the last 36 statutory decrees. What I am writing about now is the practice based on that mentality.
Centralization is continuing in the political arena too.
The prime minister and his party based their principles on freedom and democracy up until last year. Now, they are trying to restrict democracy, explaining it with minimal reasons (as done in the communiqués) and they are trying to restrict the development of democracy (as in our example, by restricting freedom of enterprise), basing it on support that will never be lasting and adequate (as in our example, the support from former deputies and similar individuals appointed to independent executive boards).
In place of “freedom of enterprise,” you may insert either the reluctance to take any steps (toward enlarging or securing) freedoms or the pressures we face every day.
Though this seems to be somewhat very difficult to see, the reasons for the inability to solve the Kurdish issue and the reasons for the forceful initiative staged last weekend by counter-powers against the Kurdish initiative are the same.
Tarhan Erdem is a columnist for daily Radikal in which this piece appeared Feb 13. It was translated into English by the Daily News staff.