Kamu Bilgisine Erişim Düzenlemeleri ve Açık Devlete Etkileri: Türkiye Örneği

Abstract

Açık devletin temel öğeleri olan açıklık, katılım ve işbirliği, iyi yapılandırılmış bilgi erişim düzenlemeleri ile sağlanmaktadır. Bu nedenle geçmişi açık devlet öncesine dayanan mevcut bilgi erişim düzenlemelerinin açık devlet gereklilikleri kapsamında yapılandırılması veya güncellenmesi bir gereklilik haline gelmektedir. Çalışmada bilgi erişim düzenlemelerinin kamu sektörü bilgilerine erişimindeki etkililikleri, açık devletle ilişkileri, açık devletin bilgi erişim düzenlemelerine etkileri literatür kapsamında değerlendirilmektedir. Literatürden yola çıkarak çalışmada açık devlet hazırlık sürecinde olan Türkiye’de mevcut Bilgi Edinme Kanunun kapsamı belirlenen kriterler doğrultusunda değerlendirilerek bu kanunun açık devlet hazırlıklarındaki etkisi ve karşılaşılabilecek/karşılaşılan eksiklikleri tanımlanmıştır. Doküman analizini araştırma yöntemi olarak kullanan bu çalışma Türkiye’de ki Bilgi Edinme Kanunu’nun açık devlet gerekliliklerini yeterli düzeyde karşılayamadığını ortaya koymaktadır. Araştırma sonuçlarında Bilgi Edinme Kanunun güncel yapılandırılmasına yönelik öneriler sunulmuştur.

Keywords

• Açık Devlet,Açık Devlet Düzenlemeleri,Bilgi Edinme,Devlet Bilgisi,Türkiye

Regulations on Access to Government Information and Impacts on Open Government: A Case of Turkey

Abstract

The fundamental elements of open government, i.e. openness, participation, and collaboration, can be secured through well-structured regulations governing access to information. Therefore, existing access to information regulations, which are based upon the pre-open government era, should be structured or updated under the mandates of open government. The present study assumes the perspective of the relevant literature to consider the effectiveness of regulations governing access to information in public’s access to information, their relationships with the government, and the effects of open government on regulations governing access to information. With its starting point in the literature, the study assesses the scope of the existing Law on the Right to Information in Turkey, as a country preparing for an open government in line with specific criteria, and defines the effects of this Law on the preparations for an open government, as well as its current/potential shortcomings. Using document analysis as its research methodology, this study reveals that the Law on the Right to Information in Turkey does not sufficiently cover the requirements of open government. The research conclusions are presented along with recommendations for the updated structuring of the Law on the Right to Information.

Keywords

• Open Government,Open Government Regulations,Right to Access Information,Government Information,Turkey

References

1. Adalı, N. (2004). Bilgi edinme hakkı (Unpublished master’s thesis). Kırıkkale Üniversitesi, Kırıkkale.
2. Article19 (1999). The Publics Right to Know: Principles on Freedom of Information Legislation. International Standart Series. Retrieved June 20, 2019, from https://www.article19.org/data/files/pdfs/standards/righttoknow.pdf.
3. Ayers, D. (2007). Evolving the link, IEEE Internet Computing, 11(3), 94-95. DOI: 10.1109/MIC.2007.53
4. Banisar, D. (2004). Freedom of information and access to government records laws around the world. Retrieved June 29, 2019, from http://www.freedominfo.org/survey/global_survey2004.pdf .
5. Bates, J. (2011). This is what modern deregulation looks like: co-optation and contestation in the shaping of the UK’s Open Government Data Initiative, The Journal of Community Informatics, 8(2).
6. Bennett, C. (1997). Understanding ripple effects: the cross national adoption of policy instruments for bureaucratic accountability, Governance, 10(1). 213-233.
7. Bertot, J.C., Jaeger, P.T., Shuler, J.A., Simmons, S.N. & Grimes, J.M. (2009). Reconciling government documents and e-government: Government information in policy, librarianship, and education, Government Information Quarterly, 26(3): 433–436. DOI: 10.1016/j.giq.2009.03.002.
8. Björkstrand, G. & Mustonen, J. (2006). Introduction: Anders Chydenius’ legacy today, Juho Mustonen (ed.). World’s first freedom of information act (pp.4-6). Kokkola: Anders Chydenius Foundation

9. Boserup, L. K. & Christensen, J. P. (2005). An introduction to openness and information access. Coppenhagen: Danish Institute for Human Rights.
10. Bureau of Communications Research. (2016). Open government data and why it matters: A critical review of studies on the economic impact of open government data. Australia: Department of Communications and the Arts
11. Civelek, D. & Aşık, Ö. (2011). Kamu sektörü bilgisinin paylaşımı ve yeniden kullanımı: DPT Çalışma raporu. Ankara: DPT.
12. Cullier, D., & Piotrowski, S.J. (2009). Internet information-seeking and its relation to support for access to government records, Government Information Quarterly, 26(3): 441-449. DOI: 10.1016/j. giq.2009.03.001
13. Darbishire, H. (2010). Proactive transparency: the future of the right to information?. Retrieved October 29, 2019, from http://siteresources.worldbank.org/WBI/Resources /213.798.1259011531325/659 8384.126.8250334206/Darbishire _ProactiveTran sparency.pdf
14. Durranti, F. (2006). Openness, access to government information and Caribbean governance, First Monday, 11(7). DOI: 10.5210/fm.v11i7.1369
15. Eroğlu, Ş. (2017). Türkiye’de kamu verilerinin açık devlet uygulamaları ve belge yönetimi çerçevesinde değerlendirilmesi: Bir model önerisi. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Hacettepe University: Ankara.
16. Francoli, M. (2011) “What Makes Governments ‘Open’?”, Journal of e-Democracy and Open Government, 3 (2): 152-165. DOI:10.29379/jedem.v3i2.65
17. Gigler, B.,S., Custer, S. & Rahmetulla, H. (2011). Realizing the vision of open government data: opportunities, challenges and pitfalls. Washington: World Bank – Open Development Technology Alliance.
18. Gökçe, O. (2006). İçerik analizi: Kuramsal ve pratik bilgiler. Ankara: Siyasal Kitabevi.
19. Heusser, F. (2012). Understanding open government data and addressing its impact. Retrieved December 18, 2019, from http://public.webfoundation.org/2012/04/ODRS/OPENDATAPAPER_DRAFT_ VERSION.pdf.
20. Information access laws. (2012). Information access laws: Overview and statutory goals. Retrieved December 16, 2019, from http://www.right2info.org/access-to-information-laws/access-to-information- laws#_ftnref7.
21. Jaeger, T. P., & Bertot, J.C. (2010). Designing, implementing, and evaluating user-centered and citizen- centered e-government, International Journal of Electronic Government Research, 6(1) 1-17. DOI: 10.4018/jegr.201.004.0101
22. Janssen, K. (2012). Open government data and the right to information opportunities and obstacles, The Journal of Community Informatics, 8(2).
23. Jasserand, C. & Hugenholtz, B. P. (2012). Using copyright to promote access to public sector information: A comparative survey. Holland: Institute for Information Law University of Amsterdam
24. Kalkınma Bakanlığı. (2013). Bilgi toplumu stratejisinin yenilenmesi projesi kamu hizmetlerinde kullanıcı odaklılık ve etkinlik ekseni mevcut durum raporu. Ankara: Kalkınma Bakanlığı.
25. Karkin, N., & Yavuz, N. (2017). An Inquiry for local open government data policy: is a proactive model of open government data portals possible in Turkey?, T. Reilly. The Governance of Local Communities: Global Perspectives and Challenges, (pp. 127-143), USA.
26. Karkin, N., & Çalhan, H. (2012). An Interactive e-Participation Model for the Public Administration System in Turkey: SIBIYO. Ege Academic Review 12 (1), 105-123.
27. Kaya, C. (2005). İdare hukukunda bilgi edinme hakkı. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
28. Kulk, S. & Loenen, B. (2012). Brave new open data world?, International Journal of Spatial Data Infrastructures Research, 7, 196-206. DOI: 10.2902/1725-0463.2012.07.art10
29. Law on Intellectual and Artistic Works. (1951). Republic of Turkey Official Journal, No: 7981, 13 December 1951.
30. Law on Regulating Broadcasting in the Internet and Fighting against Crimes Committed through Internet Broadcasting. (2007). Republic of Turkey Official Journal, No: 26530, 23 May 2007.
31. Law on the Right to Information. (2003). Republic of Turkey Official Journal, No: 25269, 24 October 2003. Mendel, T. (2008). Freedom of information: A comparative legal survey. Paris: UNESCO
32. Mulgan, R. (2007). Truth in government and the politicization of public service advice. Public Administration, 85 (3) 569–586. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9299.2007.00663.x
33. OECD. (2008). Recommendation of the council for enhanced access and more effective use of public sector information. Retrieved October 3, 2019, from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/41/52/44384673.pdf. OECD. (2015). The open government data review of Poland: Unlocking the value of government data: OECD digital government studies. Paris: OECD Publishing
34. Office of the Australian Information Commissioner. (2013). Open public sector information: from principles to practice. Retrieved December 3, 2019, from https://www.oaic.gov.au/resources/information- policy/information-policy resources/open-public-sector-information-from-principles-to-practice. pdf.
35. Open Data Barometer. (2017). Context and readiness. Retrieved January 1, 2019, from http:// opendatabarometer.org/2ndEdition/analysis/readiness.html.
36. Open Government Guide (2017). Right to information. Retrieved December 6, 2019, from http://www. opengovguide.com/topics/right-to-info/
37. Open Government Partnership (2017). What is the open government partnership. Retrieved February 20, 2019, from http://www.opengovpartnership.org.
38. Open Source. (2016). What is open government. Retrieved March 11, 2019, from http://opensource.com/ resources/open-government.
39. Özdemirci. F. (2007). Government records and records management: Law on the right to information in Turkey. Government Information Quarterly, 25(2): 303–312. DOI: 10.1016/j.giq.2006.07.017
40. Paradissis, J. (2009). The Right to Access environmental information: an analysis of UK law in the context of European, International and Human Rights Law. VDM Verlag: Saarbrucken:
41. Payne, G. & Payne, J. (2004). Key concepts in social research. London: Sage.
42. Peled, R. & Rabin, Y. (2011). The constitutional right to information, Columbia Human Rights Law Review, 42(2). 357-401.
43. Pollock, R. (2008). The Economics of public sector information”, Cambridge working papers in economics 0920, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge. Retrieved March 11, 2019, from http://rufuspollock. org/papers/economics_of_psi.pdf.
44. Public Financial Management and Control Law. (2003). Republic of Turkey Official Journal, Number: 25326, 10 December 2003.
45. Right2Info (2013). Global Principles on National Security and the Right to Information: The Tshwane Principles”. Retrieved March 14, 2019, from http://www.right2info.org/exceptions-to-access/ national-security/global-principles.
46. RTI Rating (2017). Global Right to Information Rating” . Retrieved April 10, 2019, from http://www.rti- rating.org.
47. Social Security Institution Act. (2006). Republic of Turkey Official Journal, No: 26173, 20 May 2006.
48. Susha, I., Zuiderwijk, A., Janssen, M., & Gronlund, A. (2015) “Benchmarks for evaluating the progress of open data adoption: Usage, limitations, and lessons learned”, Social Science Computer Review, 33(5), 613–630. Doi:10.1177/089.443.9314560852
49. Şengül, R. (2014). Avrupa konseyi belgelere erişim özgürlüğü sözleşmesi karşısında Türkiye’de bilgi edinme hakkı. Amme İdaresi Dergisi. 47(3). 91-110.
50. T.C. the Constitution of the Republic of Turkey. (1982). Republic of Turkey Official Journal, No: 17863, 9 November 1982.
51. Tauberer, J. (2014). Open government data. Retrieved April 6, 2019, from https://opengovdata.io accessed on 24.05. 2019.
52. The Electronic Signature Law. (2004). Republic of Turkey Official Journal, No: 25355, 23 January 2004.
53. The Law on Criminal Records. (2005). Republic of Turkey Official Journal, No: 25832, 1 June 2005.
54. The Law on the Ombudsman Institution. (2012). Republic of Turkey Official Journal, No: 28338, 29 June 2012.
55. Law Related to the Establishment Council of Ethics for Public Service and Making Modifications on Some
56. Laws No. (2004). Republic of Turkey Official Journal, No: 5176, 8 June 2004.
57. The Law Relating the Amendment and Adoption of the Law Relating Destroying Documents and Supplies No Longer Used. (1988). Republic of Turkey Official Journal, No: 3473, 29 September 1988.
58. The White House (2019). The open data initiative. Retrieved April 19, 2019, from https://www.whitehouse.gov/open
59. The World Bank. (2013). Open data readiness assessment tool. Retrieved January 10, 2019, from http://opendatatoolkit.worldbank.org/docs/odra/odra_v2-en.pdf.
60. Tran, E. & Scholtes, G. (2015). Open data literature review. Retrieved June 9, 2019, from https://www.law.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Final_OpenDataLitReview_2015-04-14_1.1.pdf.
61. Turkish Court of Account Law. (2010). Republic of Turkey Official Journal, No: 27790, 19 December 2010.
62. Türkiye Bilişim Derneği. (2016). Kamu verisinin paylaşımı politika ve mevzuatı çalışma grubu: kamu verisinin paylaşımı politika ve mevzuatı raporu. Ankara: Türkiye Bilişim Derneği.
63. Ubaldi, B. (2013). Open government data: Towards empirical analysis of open government data initiatives. Paris: OECD.
64. Uhlir,P.(2004).Policyguidelinesforthedevelopmentandpromotionofgovernmentpublicdomaininformation. Retrieved April 16, 2019, from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001373/137363eo.pdf.
65. Ulaştırma, Denizcilik ve Haberleşme Bakanlığı. (2016). “2016-2019 Ulusal e-Devlet stratejisi ve eylem planı. Ankara: Ulaştırma, Denizcilik ve Haberleşme Bakanlığı
66. Van Schalkwyk, F., Willmers, M. & Schonwetter, T. (2015). Embedding open data practice: Developing indicators on the institutionalisation of open data practice in two African governments . Retrieved April 17, 2019, from https://open.uct.ac.za/handle/11427/13810
67. Winkler. S. (2011). Open Records Laws: A state by state report: National assocation of counties, Washington The National Association of Counties.
68. Yu, H.M. and Robinson, D. (2012). The New ambiguity of open government, UCLA Law Review Discourse, 59(178).179-208.