Are Laws Written So That They Can’t Be Understood?

On July 24, 2025, the Law No. 7555 on the Protection of the Value of Turkish Currency and Amendments to Certain Laws and the Decree Law No. 635, dated July 20, 2025, was published in the Official Gazette. As someone who has drafted legislation many times before, I couldn’t help but evaluate this law—less for its actual content and more as a case study of a legislative technique that has become increasingly frequent in recent years. This law introduced amendments to numerous pieces of legislation: the Law on the Protection of the Value of Turkish Currency (No. 1567), the Tax Procedure Law (No. 213), the Value Added Tax Law (No. 3065), the Organized Industrial Zones Law (No. 4562), the Public Servants’ Trade Unions and Collective Agreements Law (No. 4688), the Technology Development Zones Law (No. 4691), the Industrial Zones Law (No. 4737), the Special Consumption Tax Law (No. 4760), the LPG Market Law (No. 5307), the Electricity Market Law, the Corporate Tax Law (No. 5520), the Law on Supporting R&D and Design Activities (No. 5746), the Law on Supporting Research Infrastructures (No. 6550), the Decree Law on the Ministry of Industry and Technology’s Support of Research and Entrepreneurship (No. 635), the Law on Certain Financial Provisions Regarding Labor and Social Security (No. 3146), the Labor Law (No. 4857), the Law on the Turkish Employment Agency (No. 4904), and the Social Insurance and General Health Insurance Law (No. 5510). In terms of content, the law is clearly an example of what is commonly referred to as a “torba kanun”—an omnibus law. This legislative method has become increasingly common in recent years. As the name suggests, it bundles together multiple, often unrelated, issues into a single legislative proposal. It is a technique frequently chosen because it allows the legislative process to be faster and more “efficient.” The name of such a law usually starts with the title of the first law it amends and ends with “…and Amendments to Certain Laws.” The first law listed is typically the one with the lowest law number, and thus the oldest. Because omnibus laws involve amendments to numerous laws, they also intersect with the responsibilities of multiple ministries. Their structure is usually long and disorganized. Rather than giving each issue its own legislative process and debate, all subjects are hastily finalized in one text. This can save time and expedite the process by reducing proposal durations, speaking rights, and committee sessions. However, while omnibus laws may be practical, they are far from democratic. Since they regulate a wide variety of areas at once, there’s a high risk that individual topics may get lost or overlooked. The public is often not sufficiently informed about the contents of such laws, which means the legislative process happens with little to no public oversight. This leads to a serious transparency problem. Although the Constitution and Parliamentary Bylaws shape how the legislative process should operate, omnibus laws represent an exceptional application of this process. When exceptions become the norm, the integrity of legislative technique is compromised. Having numerous, unrelated topics in a single bill makes it difficult for lawmakers to focus on the details. As a result, laws are drafted not to be understood— but to be misunderstood. It’s not uncommon for parliamentarians to vote to approve a text without fully grasping what they’ve just ratified. Laws passed in this way damage the coherence of the legal system and make it harder to follow and interpret changes in legislation. In the end, omnibus laws are far less comprehensible than regular laws. Take, for instance, a section from Law No. 7555, which involves a change to just a single clause of one paragraph in Law No. 1567. The amendment text reads as follows: “In the first sentence of the fifth paragraph of Article 3 of Law No. 1567, the word ‘commercial’ has been replaced with ‘unauthorized’, and the phrase ‘from one month to six months, or permanently in case of recurrence’ has been changed to ‘for one month’; the following sentence has been added after the first sentence of the paragraph; the current second sentence has been replaced with the following, and another sentence has been added after the new second sentence; the phrase ‘Undersecretariat of Treasury’ in the current third sentence has been amended as ‘Ministry of Treasury and Finance’…” What follows are three separate new sentences inserted into various parts of the paragraph. The original paragraph contained 154 words, but the text explaining the changes runs 151 words. It would have been far easier to say, “The fifth paragraph is amended as follows,” and simply write out the revised version. Forget offering commentary—just understanding what was changed is an effort in itself. The change is not inherently complex, but the way it’s written feels like solving a puzzle just to figure out what’s going on. The rule of law requires legislation to be clear and predictable. Therefore, the goal should never be to make laws obscure, but to make them understandable. Comprehensible legislation is essential for legal security, for the establishment of justice, and for the protection of citizens’ rights. Using plain language, structural organization, clear definitions, explanatory examples, participatory drafting processes, and digital accessibility are all effective methods for improving the readability and transparency of legislation.