The transformation of Turkey's political system and the executive presidency.

• Author: Duran, Burhanettyn
• Position: COMMENTARY - Essay

ABSTRACT This commentary analyzes the question of political transformation in Turkey, which has been a hotly debated issue for more than 40 years. Over the past decades, each proposal to reform the country's system of government was met with resistance from critics and it was turned into a personal issue by targeting the plan's supporters rather than the idea itself. After a brief analysis of the previous arguments, this study will focus specifically on the most recent efforts to adopt a presidential system, including the cooperation between the AK Party and MHP at the Parliament and the constitutional referendum, which will be held in 2017.

Introduction

Long periods of instability often lead to fragmentation of political parties as a result of power struggles between them and, consequently, a lack of strong government. The lack of a strong government, in turn, results in a series of early elections and prolonged coalition talks, which further aggravate political instability. As the population's confidence in the political process declines, guardianship regimes, which feed on popular distrust in politics, become centerpieces of the political system. In the end, if a country cannot amend its laws and constitution to address pressing problems, people start looking for a new system of government.

In Turkey, the search for a new system of government was motivated by economic and political crises, weak coalition governments, ineffective administrations and other problems associated with the parliamentarism. Coalition governments formed by political parties from different backgrounds, in particular, proved extremely unstable over the years and effectively brought the country to a standstill. To be clear, the lack of strong governments was closely related to the fragmentation of political parties as a result of parliamentarism and growing friction between various identity groups. During periods of instability, in turn, the weakening of political institutions made it easier for the military to overthrow democratically-elected governments and put democracy on hold. (1)

Over the years, the civilian-bureaucratic guardianship regime's ability to exploit instability and gain control over the political arena rendered the consolidation of Turkey's democratic institutions virtually impossible. Consequently, democratic consolidation proved elusive in the country, where politicians have been largely unable to develop long-term plans to promote democracy, even though the state of Turkish democracy improved under strong civilian leaders. In the end, it was Turkey's failure to break the vicious cycle of guardianship and democratic consolidation that sparked a public debate on the need to change the political system in order to overcome the crisis of Turkish-style parliamentarism. Among the advocates of change, many came to support a transition to presidentialism.

This study seeks to identify similarities between arguments used by advocates of presidentialism in recent decades. Having provided a short history of suggestions about presidential system, we primarily focus on the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) period, when the issue was debated more intensely and in greater detail than in the past. At the same time, we present the case made by successive generations of political transformation's opponents. Finally, we talk about the background of Turkey's most recent efforts to adopt a presidential system, including the cooperation between the AK Party and the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) at the Parliament and the constitutional referendum, which will be held in 2017.

Political Transformation in Turkey and Its Reasoning: A Historical Perspective

The presidentialism debate in Turkey dates back to the 1970s, when political parties affiliated with the National Outlook (Milli GOrus) Movement --including the National Salvation Party (Milli Selamet Partisi, MSP) and the National Order Party (Milli Nizam Partisi, MNP)--made the case for constitutional reform. Accordingly, the MNP's 1969 manifesto argued that "the president should come to power through single-round elections and the executive branch must be re-arranged in accordance with Two distinct political the presidential system to become more powerful and more effective." (2) The MSP's 1973 election program, in turn, called for the adoption of presidentialism, single-round presidential elections and the unification of the head of government with the head of state: "The National Salvation Party is determined to create a democratic system of state, government and Parliament that is compatible with our national qualities and character. As such, a presidential system must be adopted," the document read. "The presidency, or the head of state, will be merged with the prime ministry, or the head of government, to make the executive branch stronger, more effective and more swift. The nation shall elect the president through single-round elections. Consequently, the state and the people will naturally become united and integrated and there will be no room for domestic and international speculations, which wear down our regime over presidential elections." (3)

In Nine Lights, Alparslan Turkes, the MHP's founder and long-time leader of the Nationalist Movement (Milliyetci Hareket), argued that "strong and swift execution is only possible through the collection of executive power by a single individual. It is therefore that, in accordance with our history and tradition, we advocate the presidential system." According to Turkes, dividing the executive branch into two was "extremely problematic" because it would "weaken [executive] authority." Making the case that the president and the prime minister should be merged into a single head of state, he reiterated his party's commitment to "identify a single individual as the head of the executive branch" and proposed a plan to overcome Turkey's political crises: "If our [idea], which we call the presidential system, is put to practice, the head of state shall be elected by the nation itself using the same method as a referendum. As such, a national democracy shall be established by making it possible for the people to participate in government and to get involved in decisions made [by the authorities] on issues of interest to themselves." (4)

In this sense, two distinct political movements--Erbakan's National Outlook and Turkes's Nationalist Movement--advocated presidentialism citing political unrest fueled by weak coalition governments and the crisis of authority.

In the September 1980 military coup's aftermath, the public debate on Turkey's new constitution was dominated by supporters of presidentialism and semi-presidentialism. In particular, the discussion revolved around the introduction of direct presidential elections.5 At the time, many people were preoccupied with presidential elections because the Parliament's failure to pick the next president after 115 rounds of voting had created a deadlock and subsequently paved the way to the coup d'etat. In the end, the discussion led nowhere because the 1982 Constitution's authors designed the presidency as an ideological ally of the establishment that would protect the guardianship regime. Needless to say, the introduction of direct presidential elections would have 'risked' an individual, who did not share the military's ideology, assuming the highest office in the land.

Four years later, the presidentialism debate made a comeback. Having won a landslide victory in the 1983 parliamentary elections, Prime Minister Turgut Ozal's Motherland Party (Anavatan Partisi, ANAP) experienced a 5-point setback in municipal elections held the following year. Fearing that the country was sliding back to coalition rule, Ozal consulted with his closest advisors to see whether it was the right time to call for a presidential system.6 In order to avoid a confrontation with President Kenan Evren, the 1980 coup's leader, he postponed his plans.

It was between 1988 and his death in 1993 that Turgut Ozal emerged as a strong advocate of the presidential system in Turkey. Maintaining that the Turkish-style parliamentary system had stalled desperately-needed reforms, he argued that presidentialism --which he saw as a driving force behind change--was the best system of government for the country. (7) Of course, Ozal's call for...