Reforming the Policymaking Process in Turkey's New Presidential System.

• Author: Sobaci, Mehmet Zahid
• Position: ARTICLE

Introduction

In the aftermath of the controversial presidential election in 2007, Turkey passed a constitutional referendum to introduce popular presidential elections. The country's president was elected directly by the people for the first time in 2014. As a result, the Turkish system of government moved closer to semi-presidentialism in practice, although it remained parliamentarism de jure. Taking into consideration the risks and problems that the system's ambiguity entailed, a new constitutional referendum was held on April 16, 2017 -when the electorate agreed to the adoption of the 'Presidency' system of government. Those changes presented Turkish policymakers with a new reform wave in public administration. Following the June 2018 presidential and parliamentary elections, the country formally transitioned to presidentialism and it became necessary for the authorities to create a system of public administration compatible with the new system. Thus, Turkey restructured the organization and functions of its public administration, as the process of public policy development, the decision makers and their roles underwent certain changes.

The presidential system of government replaced the parliamentary system, under which a collective body had wielded executive power, and made it possible for a single, popularly-elected individual to exercise executive authority for a period of five years. Under the new rules, the president emerged as the main agent of policymaking. The Prime Ministry, which was a key policymaking body under parliamentarism, was abolished, as the organizational structure and functions of the Council of Ministers and the various ministries underwent certain changes. Likewise, the organization of the Presidency was revised in line with the president's constitutional powers and duties.

This article employs the process model, a frequently-used tool in public policy analysis, as a framework to make sense of the restructuring of the public administration and the changes in the policymaking process -which rose to prominence against the backdrop of Turkey's transition to a presidential system of government. In this context, the paper aims to analyze the country's new administrative model, which was designed to be compatible with the new system, and to identify the agents of policy development and their changing roles. Furthermore, it provides an analysis of Turkey's new system of government with reference to global reform trends.

In this regard, the first section of this article explains how the public policymaking process works; taking this process as an analytical framework, the article then engages in a discussion of the reasons behind Turkey's transition to a presidential system of government and how the transition process unfolded. It proceeds to analyze the central government's restructuring process within the context of public administration reforms of the recent years -with an emphasis on the changes that the Presidency has undergone. Finally, it examines, with an eye to the central government that was redesigned according to a presidential system of government, the policymaking process and the changing roles of policy actors under Turkey's new system.

Analysis Framework: Public Policymaking as a Political Process

The analysis of public policy relies on an approach that concentrates on policy actors, actor networks or institutions. Those approaches, however, tend to focus on some parts of the public policy process and ignore others. Furthermore, in cases where major changes, such as the adoption of a new system of government, take place, engaging in a network- or actor-centered analysis would be more suitable for micro-level examinations. Provided that the system operates on the macro level, it is better to examine the development of public policy as a political process comprised of a sequence of stages.

To be clear, viewing the development of public policy as a process with multiple stages isn't a novel approach. According to Harold Lasswell, who was one of the first political scientists to use the 'stages' model, the public policymaking process consists of seven stages: collecting information (intelligence), identifying policy options (promotion), setting general rules (prescription), taking into account harmony between the rules and concrete situations (invocation), implementing the option that complies with the general rules (application), assessing the merits and shortcomings of policy (appraisal) and putting an end to the implementation of rules (termination). (1)

Today, we tend to use a five-stage model to analyze the public policymaking process. According to this model, the first stage, i.e. agenda-setting, refers to policy actors showing interest in a problem actively and seriously. The 'policy formulation stage involves the elimination of inapplicable options and the development of lasting, widely accepted and applicable solutions. At the 'decision making' stage, a certain course of action is determined for legislation or implementation purposes. The fourth stage, 'policy implementation,' refers to the implementation of the previously determined policy through the public administration. Finally, at the 'policy evaluation stage, policymakers monitor the outcome of policy decisions, identify their merits and shortcomings, and reconceptualize problems and solutions as a result of policy learning. (2)

The process model makes it easier for scholars to understand the roles of participants in the policymaking process, how they interact with and relate to each other, and how every action influences others. In this regard, it considers the policymaking process dynamic rather than static. (3) Tooking at the development of public policy as a process, it becomes possible to engage in comprehensive analyses of the roles that official and unofficial stakeholders play, how they form coalition networks among themselves, and various factors including institutional culture, ideas, norms and values -separately or together. (4) One must add that the various stages are not necessarily linear in real life. As a matter of fact, they either become intertwined or can be skipped on occasion. For example, policy formulation may occur before a given problem receives attention from the government, or formulated policies may be eliminated before they are actually implemented. (5) In practice, the nature of policymaking can be quite complex, as it involves the participation of multiple actors and a series of regulations. Notwithstanding, as Stewart et al. indicate, separating policy into multiple stages "gives a framework for classifying the many activities that occur in public policymaking." (6)

Turkey's transition to a presidential system of government entailed certain changes to the policymaking process as a result of the reorganization of the country's central administration. New actors have been introduced to the above-mentioned policy stages and some pre-existing policy actors have assumed new roles. At the same time, certain new policy tools, such as presidential decrees and bylaws, have emerged.

Background of the Transition to the Presidential System in Turkey

Over the years, Turkey's parliamentary system has been frequently criticized for failing to address political instability, prevent military interventions in civilian politics, stop the bureaucratic oligarchy, and solve economic problems. Provided that reform efforts could not address the shortcomings of parliamentarism, which were inherent in the country's political culture, Turkey started looking for a new system of government. Consequently, the parliamentary system, whose institutionalization process was yet incomplete, became a contested topic in recent political history. Various politicians and academics maintained that the presidential system was more closely aligned with Turkey's administrative history and tradition, political culture, and social structure. (7)

Within the context of Turkey's parliamentary system, the executive branch was dualistic in nature. It consisted of the president, who exercised vast powers without accountability, and the politically accountable Council of Ministers. The country's parliamentary system was distinguished from classical parliamentarism by the extensive authority that Turkish presidents wielded. (8) Under those rules, the Council of Ministers, as the primary policymaking body, was responsible for setting public policy, finalizing draft laws, and making administrative regulations. Prime minister, in turn, guided and oversaw the policymaking process with the help of deputy prime ministers and the departments and bodies of the Prime Ministry.

The dualistic nature of the executive branch fueled occasional tensions in Turkish politics and resulted in various crises and conflicts over the years. Furthermore, keeping in mind a series of weak and short-lived coalition governments formed in the 1990s, Turkey's parliamentary system failed to maintain a certain level of effectiveness. It was the same political climate that limited the ability of successive governments to solve problems and develop policy. (9) Political instability and economic crises made it difficult for Turkish governments to implement public policy to enact desperately needed reforms, and to monitor their success. Furthermore, weak coalition governments tightened the bureaucratic guardianship regimes control over civilian politics.

In the wake of the 2007 presidential election, which was surrounded by controversy, Turkey passed a constitutional referendum to introduce popular elections for the Presidency. In addition to worsening the problem of dual legitimacy already plaguing the executive branch, this move represented an additional step away from classical parliamentarism. Consequently, the first popular presidential election, which took place on August 10, 2014, pushed Turkey's system of government closer to...