Lèse-majesté: the implications of the example of Turkey in a European context

This thesis deals with criminal defamation of the Turkish head of state and its implications in a wider, European context. It approaches the subject with a comparative method, underlining the historical roots of the offence in Europe (lèse-majesté) and the theory and practice of similar offences across the European continent before addressing the gravity of the situation in Turkey in light of both Turkish law and human rights law. In doing so, this thesis explores the evolution of a centuries-old offence and how it can be “resurrected” in a 21st century European liberal democracy for the purpose of suppressing political speech.

Before the Justice and Development Party’s rise to power and the presidential election which saw the ascent of Tayyip Erdoğan to presidency, Turkish lawyers and legal scholars paid little attention to the phenomenon of lèse-majesté due to its relative disuse. However, it was not long before the country underwent a regime change and the offence of “defamation of the President” became the basis of thousands of criminal proceedings against the new regime’s critics, including children. Thus, the question as to the compatibility of this practice with the rest of Europe and the case law of human rights bodies became imperative and eventually conceived this thesis.

Consequently, this thesis argues that the mere existence of lèse-majesté laws constitutes a threat to democratic debate. It follows that relying on the disuse of lèse-majesté laws does not preclude their future abuse by a de facto autocracy, and Turkey is not the sole example in that respect. In sum, it is submitted that it is both a democratic duty and a human rights obligation to abolish lèse-majesté laws, in the hope that Turkey will be viewed as a warning sign by other European jurists in our common struggle for greater freedom of expression.