Is a presidential system feasible in Turkey?
by Mümtaz’er Türköne

The let-us-introduce-the-presidential-system thesis had been brought to the agenda several times in the past. It was generally promoted by strong presidents, as well as strong prime ministers, who were making plans to run for president. Süleyman Demirel and Turgut Özal serve as examples from the first and second groups, respectively. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has, however, recently kicked off the latest round of debates for a completely different reason. Turkey is now in a completely different position compared to the past. For this reason, we must take a different look at the current presidential system debates and discuss with a broad perspective whether Turkey is ready for such a radical change in its political system.

If a strong political will can be mobilized with sufficient backing from the public, Turkey may transition to a presidential system. How? The system has already changed.

The country has already moved away, at least partially, from the parliamentary system from a constitutional perspective. However, these constitutional rules have yet to be implemented. Therefore, no one can make an assessment of the change.

In 2007, the crisis that occurred during the election of the president led to a referendum to be called, one in which several constitutional amendments were to be voted on. After the election, this crisis was overcome and Abdullah Gül was elected president. Still the referendum was held as scheduled. The constitutional amendments approved during this referendum provided for the election of the president directly by voters, instead of by Parliament. Currently, Turkey has not had a president directly elected by the people. We will elect one in an election which may be possibly held in 2012. Even though the president’s constitutional powers and authorities would remain unchanged, the fact of whether he or she is elected by Parliament or directly by voters would produce different consequences. A president elected directly by voters will naturally be more prestigious and influential. Also, he or she will act in a more politicized manner. A president who wins an election after waging an election campaign and conducting debates with his/her rivals will certainly perform acts that exceed his/her ordinary powers and authorities.

With a president to be elected by the people in the coming years, Turkey will automatically move closer to a presidential system. This development will naturally introduce certain limits on parliamentary traditions and rules. So can’t we see it as a natural phase in the process of transitioning to a presidential system?

Turkey’s parliamentary future

Turkey’s extensive experience of parliamentary democracy is often stressed. Indeed, Turkey first introduced a constitutional parliamentary system in 1876 and in this respect it has more seniority than many countries around the world. Still, many fail to touch on the unique contradictions of this experience. Indeed, in countries with absolute monarchies, transition to democracy would inevitably happen through a parliamentary system. This is because when you put an end to a monarchy, you cannot introduce a presidential system directly. The countries where monarchies continue even at a symbolic level effectively governed by parliamentary democracies.

The Turkish Grand National Assembly (TBMM) that established the Republic of Turkey also introduced a parliamentary government system that alluded to the convention system of the French Revolution. Thus, the government that was established in 1920 in Ankara and claimed that it had legitimacy against the Sultan in İstanbul inevitably allowed Parliament to garner all of its powers and authorities. Otherwise, it would have been unable to compete with the authority of the Sultan.

Indeed, after the establishment of the Republic this model was quickly abandoned. Turkey introduced a de facto presidential system. The parliament’s sole mission was to give legitimacy to a president who held and exercised all powers and authorities. The system during the era of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, as well as İsmet İnönü until 1950, can be properly defined as a presidential, rather than a parliamentary, one.

Decentralization and the presidential system

Turkey’s Kurdish issue is not merely an ethnic problem. A large portion of the structural problems of the political system in Turkey are the result of this issue. Unlike the global trend, Turkey’s insistence on excessive centralization is the result of the Kurdish issue. The Turkish political system stubbornly resists decentralization. The cause of this resistance is not only the strong civilian/military bureaucracy. The fear that decentralization may boost the Kurdish tendency toward independence is adding momentum to the “irrationality” of centralization.

Turkey must ensure decentralization and at the same time, strike a balance between it and the concerns about the continuation of the unitary structure. With a presidential system, it may be possible to establish such equilibrium in the country. With such a system, there would be a strong and stable executive power that would represent the majority, and on the other hand, it would be possible to transfer certain powers and authorities of the central government to local administrations. As the president will function as the continuation of the unitary structure, decentralization may be implemented in many areas.

A parliamentary system gives supremacy to the legislative branch by subordinating the executive to the legislative. And the legislative power does not want to share its powers and authorities with local bodies. As an extension of decentralization, provincial city councils may act and make decisions as local parliaments. This will naturally create local executive powers. A presidential system, on the other hand, can easily compensate for such local executive powers by ensuring unity throughout the country.

For these reasons, a presidential system may offer an effective framework for a rapid and permanent solution to the Kurdish issue. The US federal system cannot be established in Turkey. But the presence of a president like the US president will certainly add legitimacy to the local powers.

With ups and downs marking its long adventure in democracy, Turkey has come to a new crossroads. The order established with the military coup of May 27, 1960 has ended. Today’s politics is being performed in its ruins. Therefore, a new system will inevitably have to be established. This is the reason why the debates on drafting a new constitution have quickly spread to the masses. Turkey’s new system will be established simultaneously with its new constitution. There is nothing wrong with having debates about a new constitution debates include discussions about a presidential system.

As a result of these debates, Turkey may choose to introduce a presidential system. The outcomes of such a choice cannot be predicted today. In light of the country’s good economic performance, the end of external interventions with the political system, particularly from the military, and the emergence of a constructive and consensual culture, a presidential system may be a useful and practical choice.

Turkey will not be able to consolidate its democracy without solving its Kurdish and Alevi issues. Thus, in order to resolve these issues, it seems a good idea to have a consensual and conciliatory president and a presidential system that would compensate for decentralization.