Algerian - Morocco Conflict and Turkish geopolitics - Conversation on JCP Studios youtube channel

 

An Analysis on Turkey's Presidential System

 Abstract 

In this study, in addition to academic references in languages of Turkish and English, we drew  advantage from personal experience gained through election observation missions for April 2017  Referendum in Turkey. Debates on the presidential system in Turkey generated not on the basis  of whether the system is a necessity but on the basis of the rivalry of political parties. Thus, the  discussions didn’t take place in a wholesome frame. Another remarkable aspect of the  discussions is that the presidential system was debated as it's ‘’matter of survival’’ of the  country. For instance, while pro-presidential system camp have construed the system as a  ‘’national cause’’ the opponents have perceived it as a ‘’a step toward one-man-rule’’. To  change governmental system in any country would naturally bring debates, however the issue in  case of Turkey is not debating but it’s debating the system partially and non-intellectually. As  mentioned above, the presidential system has been discussed like an ordinary political issue.  Moreover, some debates on traditional media outlets were in standard of a regular soccer game  discussion. In such circumstances, the public that already don't have much clue about the  presidential system, confused even more. In fact, the statement that the public does not have an  opinion on presidential system is heavily relevant to the fact that the presidential system is  actually not on agenda of the people. 

In the study, general information about the government systems in the world is given and  similarities with Turkey are revealed. In the 1st chapter of the paper, wa aimed to acquaint an  overview on cases and examples in the world to lay out similarities to Turkey’s new presidential  sytem. The sample systems mentioned in the paper were compiled under three headlines:  ‘’parliamentary systems, presidential and semi-presidential systems and monarchies’’. 

Since there more than two hundreds governments registered in the UN, it’s fair to say that each  nation’s governmental system is consequence of nation’s history, culture and political character.  For instance, Bosna-Herhek’s governmental system is sui-generis. Likewise, Iran’s governmental  combines features of presidential and semi-presidential systems. Also, altought it doesns’t have a  theochracy, North Korea has a system that associates from father to son. 

However, rather than ‘’extreme’’ systems, the paper aims to scrutinize systems with acclaimed  standards in the world that possibly can be applied in Turkey. 

1) Types of Governmental System 

i) Parliamentary System 

The origin of the word parliament is derives from the word "parley". The word ‘’parley’’ goes  back to assemblies held by England’s King III. Henry with the the council of Lords. The council  is called as ‘’Great Council’’ (Szilagyi, 2009) and it is considered as predecessor of today’s  House of Lords. The parliamentary system that arose and took the shape in England then sprung 

to the continental Europe, has had its golden age in 13th century. Most distinctive charecteristic  of the system is seperation of powers. The president is head of the state while s/he is not head of  execution. While president is head of state, s/he is not head of execution. President’s role is  symbolic rather than executive – she represents unity of nation. 

In parliamentary system, its prime minister who is responsible of execution of government.  Prime minister and his administration have to receive ''vote of confidence'' by parliament that  being elected by public. One of the point of criticism on parliamentary system is that; a  presindent who elected by the parliament gives lex non scripta authority of forming next  governent to a politicians who directly elected by public.  

It’s often regarded that, in practice, there are two types of the parliamentary system: Westminster  and Consociational model. Westminster model is basically the model that being practiced in  today’s England. Even though the England is a de-jure monachy, in fact, it’s a strong democrasy. The model has derived throughout such specific characteristic of England's administrative  structure. According to Westminster model, the exacutive body (the government) emerges from  the parliament and it’s accountable to parliament. However, in the model, center is powerful  which means prime minister and ruling party have wide authority of execution. 

Hence, properties of Westminster model can be listed as below: 

- One-party government 

- Powerfull cabinet 

- Unitary state 

- Semi-autonomous central bank 

- Non-emphasised Constitution 

- The absence of sharp separation of legislative and executive powers. 

- Prominent and powerfull prime minister and cabinet.  

The Westminster model is being practised in The United Kingdom states such as England,  Canada and New Zealand. However, the model might have different practices and laws in  each country since each nation have different social and political dynamics. (Kama) 

Conversely, in Consociational model, it is more likely to have multy-party coalition.  Consociational model’s properties could be as below: 

- Tend to have multy-part coalition 

- Sharp seperation between legislature and executive body. 

- High-number of small parties 

- Written constitution 

The model that being practised in Turkey is the Consociational one. As it’s chronical issue in  parliamentary systems, Turkey has very often faced issue of forming a government. Pro-

presidential system camp in Turkey frequently argue that the parliamentary system causes  political and governmental criss. So that limits ability of constituting a powerful government.  However, as mentioned above, the parliamentary system is not a monolithic one. As example of  England, certain models of parliamentary system makes forming a powerful government  possible. The most interesting aspect of the discussions on govermental system in Turkey is,  regarding presidential system as sole alternative to parliamentary system. Possibility of forming  a powerful government in a parliamentary system is being ignored. What we are argueing is not  that, the Westminster model must be practiced in Turkey, but we find arguing the presidential  system as only alternative to form a powerful government ‘’interesting’’. 

ii) Presidential System 

The presidential system originated in the United States of America (USA). In fact the USA is  only country that presidential system is being accurately practiced. As like Westminster model,  the parliamentary system suggests a powerful executive body. Beside the US, some other nations  have experienced the presidential system. Most of these nations are Latin American and MENA  countries. Non of these nations are of of the leading democract in the world. In order for a  governmental system to be incorporate into a nation, there are some sociological phases to be  achieved. Foremost of these is the tradition oif democracy. So in that sense, it’s fair to say that  attempting to practice presidential government system in a nation without immature democracy,  is doomed to fail or turn into a sort of dictatorship.  

The parliamntery system suggests a strict seperation of powers. President and Senetors who  seperately being elected by public, are equal before the law - in other words, both balance each  other. Basis on this strict seperation, these powers can not interfere affairs of each other. The  legislature makes law but it doesn’t have authority on how to execute the laws. Likewise, the  executive body/government enforce the laws but it does not make laws. Perhaps judiciary in  presidential system enjoys wide independency like it doesn’t in any other governmental system  model. Another intriguing aspect of the system is that, the president de-jure has authority to act  on his own. Although it may sound frightening for democracy, in case the principles of  seperation of powers being applied properly, single person led government may have positive  impact on representation of the people.  

Characteristic of the presidential system could be listed as below; 

- Strict seperation of powers 

- Term of office of the President clear-determined. 

- The executive body doesn’t have right to dissolve the legislature. 

- Neither the president nor anyone who in the government can participate in the legislative  process. 

The US presidential system, essentially derived from equality of power rather than separation of  powers. Having a look into the period that the USA has been established, its seen that the 

European nations were suffering of monarchies. As a nation who gained independence against an  European monarchy, people of America did not will to have a monarchy like Europe nor a  president with unlimited authority. As mentioned above, the governmental system and social  dynamics, history and tradition of a nation are heavily dependent to each other. Who knows, in  case George Washingtron, the first president and one of the founding fathers of the USA, hasn't  started tradition of limiting presidency in two terms, perhaps the US wouldn't have an advanced  democracy? 

iii) Semi Presidential System 

Likewise the USA's presidential system, France is the sole country where the semi-presidential  system is being properly practiced. The system was developed by French General Charles De  Gaulle who was perceived as ‘’savior’’ in post-2nd World War period France. Unlike the  parliamentary system the president in semi-presidential system, leads the executive body. The  president and parliament being elected by the people in separate elections. The system welcomes  party-member president. The presidential election is consisting of two rounds. Two candidates  who received highest percentage of the votes, compete for a second round.  

As mentioned above, the system is considered as specific one to France. The electoral threshold  in France is %5 which ensures a wide representation in the parliament. Comparing to Turkey where electoral threshold is 10%, in case France’s semi-presidential system has been adopted in Turkey, it will likely cause a dysfunctional parliament. In another word, the parliament would be  unable to fulfil its fundamental task which is representing the people. Although the semi presidential system suggests a strict unitarianism, it also endorses a strong local governance.  However, Turkey is facing a rapid tendency of centralisation. Most of the authority of local  governments has been transferred to governors appointed by the central government. However,  in France the trend is other way round. Particularly, in 90s, the system was found over centralized and the central government, has shifted some of his authorities to local  administrations. 

For instance, in France's Basq majority provinces, a local court may hear the trial in Basque  language. Likewise, in Corsica island the local locals are free to study in Corsican language.  Assuming that Turkey is practicing a semi-presidential government model; in that case as like  France's Basq provinces, the east and south east provinces of Turkey where Kurdish population  is majority, are supposed to have more authonomy. But anyone who has a clue on Turkey's  domestic political dynamics would know that it's practically not possible. Therefore, the  democratic maturity that we have mentioned above about presidential system of the US, is matter  of semi-presidential model as well. That’s probably why that the discussions on presidential 

system in Turkey have evolved into ‘’Turkish style presidential system’’ which doesn’t have a  theoritical and scientific basis.  

In semi-presidential system, unlike presidential model, the presindet appoints a prime minister.  However, role of prime minister in semi-presidential system is different than parliamentary  system. In practice, the prime minister in semi-presidential system is equal to the vice president  in presidential system. Essentially, the prime minister a de-facto deputy to the president – particularly in internal affairs. Another aspect of the system is that it has a strict check-balance mechanism. While check-balance mechanism in the presidential and parliamentary systems  includes executive power and legislature, the semi-presidential system’s check-balance covers  the president, executive power and parliament (Canas Vitalino, 2004).  

Beside the political parties, the political blocs loom large in the semi-presidential system. The  president and the majority of the parliament can be from different blocs – e.g the president could  be from left wing bloc but majority of the seats of the parliament can be occupied by right wing  members. The blocs cause a de-facto, two-party party system like in the US presidential system. 

It’s fair to say that France is sole democratic nation that successfully adopted the system. The  system occasionally comes up to agenda of Turkish public. Yet, the pro-presidential model camp  finds the system provides inadequate authority to president while pro-parliamentary camp argue  that the system suggests excessive authority to the president. Thus, the semi-presidential system  couldn’t gain popularity from either camp.