The constitutional amendment draft: The end of debates on change in the Turkish political system?

• Author: Gulener, Serdar
• Position: Report

ABSTRACT Debate over the government system has occupied Turkey's political and constitutional agenda for many years. Yet the discussions that have taken place have not, until very recently, progressed beyond the level of popular discourse. In the last quarter of 2016, however, the possibility has emerged of debating the government system in a concrete way through the proposal of a constitutional amendment. This proposal, the product of negotiations between the AK Party and MHP, seems to be elaborated on a design that considers the interplay of presidential systems in relation to legislative, executive, and judiciary powers. In this article, the basic features of the proposed government system are addressed in comparison with various examples from around the world.

Introduction

Debates on the system of government in Turkey have been on the agenda since the 1960s; however, they increased in urgency towards the end of 2016. A proposal for constitutional amendments was made following talks between the ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party) and the opposition Nationalist Action Party (MHP). The proposal suggests a critical transformation from the existing parliamentary system to a presidential system of government.

A motion for the draft was submitted to the Presidency of Turkey's Grand National Assembly (TBMM) while this article was being written. It may be said that the proposal is a product of efforts to blend the positive aspects of many successful presidential systems, e.g. particularly the one in force in the United States of America, with a unicameral legislature and the principle of a unitary State having the traces of Turkey's historical and political reservoir. In fact, the structure described uniquely for Turkey is officially dubbed, "the System of 'President of the People'" (Cumhurbaskanligi Sistemi), variously referred to as President, Presidential System or Presidency, hereafter.

This study will present the technical outlines of the proposal jointly crafted by the AK Party and the MHP. The article begins with a closer look at the history of debates on presidency in Turkey. It will assess the main parameters of a possible change in the system of government based on relations between the legislative and executive branches, addressing such topics as "the structure of the legislature," "the method of electing the president," "presidential executive orders," "the authority of mutual annulment," "the penal responsibility of the president," and "vice presidents and ministers."

History of Debates on the Presidential System in Turkey

The beginning of the debates regarding the presidential system goes back a long way, although the debates increased in frequency in the 2000s. Although debates on the system were held during the periods of the 1961 Constitution and the 1982 Constitution, they have intensified since the 1970s. It could be said that the unstable and short-lived coalition governments that emerged in the 1960s were the starting point for all debates over the presidential system.

Intensified political debates on the presidential system were initially found in the 1969 party platform of the National Order Party (MNP), which urged, "For the productive, expeditious and potent conduct of public services in our Turkey, which is obliged to develop more rapidly, ...the President should be elected by universal direct suffrage, and the order of the executive body should be organized in accordance with a presidential system."1 Following the dissolution of the MNP, debates on the presidential system continued through the MNP's successor, the National Salvation Party (MSP), whose party platform included references to a presidential system. It would not be inaccurate to say that debates on the presidential system flared up again in connection with the presidential election and the parliamentary system crises that occurred in the late 1970s.

After the enactment of the 1982 Constitution, then President Turgut Ozal reinitiated the debates regarding a presidential system. Ozal stated that a presidential system was essential to Turkey's economic development, and that a breakthrough in the economy could be achieved through a presidential system. (2) Ozal, underlining that the culture of political reconciliation was feeble in Turkey, said it was difficult for the ruling and opposition parties to reconcile on issues of vital importance to the country, and that Turkey had an historic opportunity to become the leader of the region by overcoming this challenge. (3) Ozal asserted that if Turkey were to adopt a presidential system, a strong separation of powers would be instituted which would accelerate the decision-making process.

Ozal advocated that the president must retain the authorities that were granted by the 1982 Constitution, that a presidential election must be held every five years by a national vote based on a two-round absolute majority system, and that the presidential election must be held concurrently with the parliamentary election.(4) A prominent political figure of the period, the late chairman of the MHP, Alparslan Turkes, silently followed the debates and did not speak negatively on the matter. According to Turkes, transformation to a presidential system was necessary for a fast-moving and strong rulership. (5) Ozal's proposal to change the system of government failed due to the lack of the necessary majority in the parliament to amend the Constitution.

After being elected president by the parliament, Ozal reiterated that a presidential system was a requirement for Turkey's economic development because it would bring greater stability in governance. (6) In 1988, Ozal suggested electing the president by popular vote; however, in view of the discussion held around his personality, he later emphasized (7) that the president would be definitely elected by the parliament. Debates on a presidential system were shelved temporarily after Ozal died in office in 1993.

The Presidential system was opened to discussion once again by the late President Suleyman Demirel, Ozal's successor. Demirel must have considered that the mere existence of a president, as a stabilizing element, was not strong enough during the crises that had occurred in Turkey towards the end of the 1990s; he brought the presidential system back into question as of 1997. Demirel's main argument on the issue was that a presidential system provides stability in government. Demirel noted that he had approved six different governments in four years, and argued that such instability in governance makes a parliamentary system questionable; he stated that Turkey should adopt either a presidential or a semi-presidential system. (8) The ensuing debate on the system intensified in academic circles and the political sphere. Counter statements claimed Turkey was not ready for a presidential system and that if such a system were to be imposed, it would transform into a dictatorship. It was also claimed that Demirel was asking for a presidential system for himself, i.e. out of self-interest.

Debates on the presidential system frequently made the agenda with the arrival of the 2000s. The discussions intensified further following a constitutional amendment in 2007, whereby the president would be elected by popular vote. Considering the ratifications of electing the president by popular vote in connection with the model of presidency wherein the president has authorities without having any responsibility, as introduced in the 1982 Constitution, it can be argued that the parliamentary system in Turkey is currently a "semi-presidential system." (9) The AK Party proposed a draft for a presidential system to the Constitutional Reconciliation Commission (CRC) in 2013; since then the presidential system has been advocated by many government officials, including President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. The debates intensified with the first-ever election of the president by a national vote in 2014, and the president's power and affiliation with his party quickly became the center of discussions. In the scope of that debate, politicians of the period voiced the need for a constitution change. (10) In the 2015 general elections, the AK Party referred to a presidential system in the declaration of the party platform for the election. (11)

The Constitutional Amendment Draft Proposed by the AK Party and the MHP

Perhaps the...