Reconsidering the presidential system in Turkey.

• Author: Tosun, Gulgun Erdogan
• Position: ARTICLE

ABSTRACT Debates on the system of government have been on the political agenda in Turkey since the 1960s, gaining momentum in recent years. Disengagement from the parliamentary system began with the election of the 12th President of Turkey by popular vote in 2014. To this end, the ruling AK Party and the MHP submitted a proposal to Parliament on December 10, 2016 to amend the Constitution. This article aims to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of a presidential system for Turkey. As the debate unfolds, examining fully the pros and cons of a presidential system is vitally important.

Debates on the System of Government in Turkey

In pursuit of political stability, the debate about the system of government, and the advantages and disadvantages of a presidential system, is a critical factor in Turkey's democratization process. Debated since the 1980's, a transition from a parliamentary system to a semi or full presidential system was mooted by the late Presidents Turgut Ozal and Suleyman Demirel, in addition to former Prime Minister Tansu Ciller. Proponents of a presidential system argue it offers greater political stability. Ozal saw the parliamentary system as an obstacle to his reforms, describing the presidential system as a "generator of the transformation." Demirel, who was elected president after Ozal by the Grand National Assembly of Turkey (TBMM) on May 16, 1993, described the presidential post, in contrast to Ozal, as one that should remain politically impartial. Demirel suggested a presidential system would have benefits beyond managing economic difficulties, arguing it offered a way out of various crises such as the weakening of the execution, the formation of fragmented politics after non-political interventions, the failure of the parliament to form a government, or the failure of a government to win the vote of confidence. (1) Shortly after the establishment of the 59th Government in 2003, then Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan reignited the debate declaring Turkey would be poised to make a great leap forward if an American-type presidential system were to be agreed. (2) The debate has waxed and waned in the intervening years but has gradually gained momentum since 2013.

The course of discussions reveals that the issue of political (in)stability most of the time has been degraded to government instability and that institutional arrangements (e.g., granting the president with more power and the authority of annulment, and electing the president by popular vote) are proposed to consolidate the stability of the executive body. (3) Some lean towards a presidential system as a solution while others prefer a semi-presidential system.

Since 2014, discussions about a semi-presidential system have, without doubt, dwindled. Elected the 12th President of Turkey by popular vote on August 10, 2014, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, as head of the State, shares executive power with the Prime Minister. According to Giovanni Sartori, these two characteristics indicate a semi-presidential system. (4) As such, a semi-presidential sytem is de facto in force--and it is viewed as a stepping stone to a complete system as both the President and the governing AK Party have stated a transition to a full presidential system is the ultimate goal. The first draft of a presidential system prepared by the AK Party was brought forward in November 2013. For a new Turkish-style presidential system, the latest version of the draft has been crafted around the concepts of "indigenous and national" as declared by Erdogan. It is dubbed as the system of "President/Head of The People--Cumhurbaskanligi Sistemi."

When it comes to the presidential system, Sartori describes three basic criteria: accordingly, "a political system is a presidential system if and only if the head of the state (president) (i) is elected by popular vote, (ii) cannot be removed from office by a parliamentary voting, and (iii) presides over the governments s/he appoints or directs them in other ways. If all these three conditions are satisfied, we face a genuine presidential system."5 One of the most well-know examples of the presidential system is the American system, the most distinctive characteristic of which is the separation of powers both organically and functionally between the legislative, judicial and executive branches. With some nuances in practice, as far as functionality is concerned, it means a hard separation of areas of responsibility, and their legal indepen-

dence from each other. Legislative body establishes rules (writes and enacts laws) as executive branch executes and enforces established rules, that is to say, it governs and administers. Their being "organically" separated means that legislative and executive functions are fulfilled by separate bodies, and both act independently.

Congressional elections are held every two years while presidential elections every four. The legislative, judicial and executive branches are independent and co-equal. Unlike a parliamentary system, the president is not accountable to the Congress. The president is the head of the executive branch, elected for a fixed single term of four years (not to exceed 8 in total), and the legislative branch can only remove a president from office by "impeachment." Thus, the president is accountable only to the electorate. The president's cabinet is generally made up of individuals close to the president or from his/her party. Members of the cabinet cannot be elected to the legislature.

When the legislative branch sends a bill to the executive, the president has veto power. This separation of powers is ultimately designed to lead to a system of checks and balances. (6) In addition, the president may issue executive-orders (derived from the Constitution by interpretation) although not stated explicitly in the constitution in the U.S. case. (7) Unlike in a parliamentary system, the principle of separation of powers means that the legislative and executive branches do not have the power of mutual termination. (8)

Criticism of the Parliamentary System in Turkey

As Turkey moves towards a presidential system, there are valid criticisms of a parliamentary system which deserve attention. Recently, there has been significant debate and criticism of the political and economic instability that arose during the Ozal and Demirel governments. According to Ali Aslan, a research specialist on Turkish politics, the advantages of migrating away from a parliamentary system hinges on four issues: "uncertainty in the system of government, tutelary parliamentarism, failure of the institutionalization of politics and a crisis of parliamentarism." (9)

We presume that political-practice issues listed above originate from the fragility of democracy in Turkey and from weak institutionalization. Only one political party constituted the parliamentary majority and formed single-party governments since 2002. However, the process in which single-party governments shaped the execution was interrupted in 2015. The dosage of criticism deservedly increased upon the failure to form a government at the end of the June 7, 2015 general election, a snap election that followed it on November 1, 2015, and a heinous coup attempt on July 15, 2016.

The past coup experiences had hit a blow on the constitutional order. Yet again, Turkey faced a coup attempt on July 15, 2016. Despite the July 15 coup attempt, the fragility has been deepened by the on-going security operations in the eastern and southeastern provinces; terror attacks targeting masses and security officials of the state in metropolitan cities, and the developments in Syria. From this perspective, the parliamentary system is further undermined as it...