Presidentialism in Turkey

Instability and Change

Serap Gur

• Publisher: Taylor & Francis
• Year: 2016
• eBook ISBN: 9781315303178
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Middle Eastern Politics
• Index: Politics & International Relations

Parliamentarism has been a presiding characteristic of the Turkish political tradition since the 1876 Ottoman constitution. In 1923, with the founding of the Turkish Republic, modern parliamentarism was implemented in Turkey. Since that time, Turkish politics has been turbulent, with four military coups, a number of short-lived multiparty coalitions, and several ineffective governments. Many scholars have argued that the main reason for this instability is the parliamentary system of government, so Turkey must therefore adopt a presidential system.

Presidentialism in Turkey uses both quantitative analysis and country-based comparisons to explore whether such a change might solve Turkey's main political problems or if it might in fact create more problems for the nation. The relationship between government systems and political, economic, and social development is explored in a time-series analysis covering the period 1975–2014 for Turkey. It is argued that during this time period, the parliamentary system was better than the presidential system at boosting economic and political development, whereas the presidential system provides better social development. Furthermore, a country-based analysis in which Turkey is compared with other states that have used a presidential system at some point since 1975 highlights that each country has its own specific characteristics that affect its economic and political success. Thus, a regime transformation to a presidential system will not necessarily improve Turkey's economic, political, and social development.

By including a comparison of all presidential, parliamentary, and semi-presidential systems, this book helps to shed new light on what is a very controversial topic in Turkey. It will therefore be a key resource for students and scholars of Turkish studies and comparative politics.

1 Introduction

Parliamentarism has been a presiding characteristic of the Turkish political tradition since the 1876 Ottoman constitution. In 1923, with the founding of the Turkish Republic, modern parliamentarism was implemented in Turkey. Since that time, Turkish politics have been turbulent: Turkey has witnessed four military coups (1960, 1971, 1980, and 1997), a number of short-lived multiparty coalitions, and several ineffective governments. Some argue that the main problem associated with this instability is the parliamentary system of government, and a number of scholars and intellectuals have argued that Turkey must adopt a presidential system as a solution (Kuzu, 2006; Fendoglu, 2010; Gonenc, 2011).

As a result, there are ongoing discussions among academics and senior leaders of the Justice and Development Party (AKP) regarding the transition from a parliamentary system of government to a presidential system. This debate first arose during Turgut Ozal’s period in office in the late 1980s, but ended due to his unexpected death in 1993. President Suleyman Demirel brought up the issue again in 1997, but did not enact the transformation. Former prime minister and current president Recep Tayyip Erdogan raised the issue in 2003,¹ and the debate has grown more heated since 2010 (Gonenc, 2005). All of these prominent Turkish political figures have argued that a presidential system is more suitable for the Turkish society and political system because Turkey needs an executive authority that can execute decisions more efficiently and quickly (Kalaycioglu, 2005; Uran, 2010).

The Erdogan government is serious about its plan to shift to a presidential system from the current parliamentary system and has begun making arrangements for this transformation, including implementing changes regarding the election of the president. Before 2007, the Turkish president was elected in a secret ballot by the parliament for a seven-year term. A two-thirds majority was required for election. Since 2007, when a national referendum altered the structure, the president has been elected in a popular plurality election. The presidential term was reduced from seven years to five, and the reelection of the president for a second term was allowed (Ay, 2004; Arslan, 2005).

Following Erdogan’s statements² about the presidential system, the debate over presidentialism and parliamentarism has convulsed Turkish society. Some argue that this movement toward presidentialism is due to Erdogan’s desire to stay in office longer, with greater authority (Egrikavuk, 2011). Others argue that it will create a better political system for Turkish politics, regardless of Erdogan’s alleged personal ambitions (Kuzu, 2006; Turkone, 2011). Whatever the case, this is not an easy decision. Over the past decades there has been a movement toward democratization and freedom in the world. According to Freedom House (2014), the number of countries categorized as “free” and “partly free” has risen significantly, while the number of “not-free” countries has decreased (see Table 1.1).

However, a recent example of a successful transformation from pure parliamentary system to pure presidential one (or vice versa) does not exist. Brazil changed from a presidential to a semi-presidential system in 1960s, but returned to presidentialism in 1963. Israel altered the mechanism of selecting its prime minister in 1992, but returned to its old system in 2001. Similarly, Moldova had a semi-presidential system until 2000, but turned to a parliamentary form of government in 2000. Armenia turned to a mixed system from a presidential one in the mid-1990s. These examples represent transitions from pure to mixed and mixed to pure institutional forms (Fendoglu, 2010). For Turkey, the problem is that while the AKP government is talking about a fundamental change from pure parliamentarism to pure presidentialism, there is no example in the world of such a change over the past decades. Also, in Turkey the issue is complicated because many members of the public, and even some parliamentarians, do not fully understand the true nature of a presidential system. Erdogan criticizes the US presidential system and argues that it works slowly; as a result, he is offering to create a “Turkish-style presidential system”³ (Albayrak, 2012). Erdogan’s aim in creating a “Turkish-style presidential system” is to create a unicameral legislature instead of a bicameral one. He argues that having two bodies slows down the process, and he says that one parliamentary chamber can easily control the president (Albayrak, 2012; Demir, 2012).

Table 1.1 Number of free, partly free, and not-free countries in the world

Year	Free countries	Partly free countries	Not-free countries
1973	44 (29%)	38 (25%)	69 (46%)
2013	90 (46%)	58 (30%)	47 (24%)

Source: Freedom House (2014)

This study attempts to evaluate both systems in detail in order to understand their characteristics and shed light on the applicability of a presidential system for Turkey. It aims to show whether such a change might solve Turkey’s main political problems or if it might create more problems for the nation. The main goal of this book is to answer the following questions: which system of government should Turkey choose? Should it retain the current parliamentary system or should it move toward a presidential system? It also evaluates the following research sub-questions: (1) Is there another viable approach, instead of the proposed rapid fundamental change? (2) What might be the possible consequences of a system change? (3) Is this proposed system change applicable to Turkey’s party structure? (4) How will the proposed system change affect the country’s economic, social, and political development?

Literature review

Presidential, parliamentary, and semi-presidential systems

There is an ongoing institutional debate in the literature regarding government structure and its effects on the consolidation of democracy.⁴ Much of this debate centers on governmental regime type, that is, whether the government has a presidential, semi-presidential, or parliamentary system.

The most common type of democratic system is parliamentarism, in which the legislative and executive branches are fused, resulting in a government that is controlled by the legislative majority. Parliamentary systems emerged in the nineteenth century, most notably in Britain (Müller and Strom, 2000). A parliamentary system is defined as

a system of mutual dependence: first, the chief executive power must be supported by a majority in the legislature and can fall if it receives a vote of no confidence and second, the executive power (normally in conjunction with the head of state) has the capacity to dissolve the legislature and call for elections.

(Stepan and Skach, 1993: 3)

In general, the executive in a parliamentary system consists of a head of state and a head of government. The head of state has pro forma ceremonial power in the appointment of the prime minister: the head of government. The prime minister nominates other ministers. In such systems, the government is a collective body that is directly responsible to the assembly and only indirectly to the electorate. Parliamentary systems imply cooperation between the executive and legislative branches, but neither dominates the other (Verney, 1959). In addition, Siaroff (2003) defines parliamentary government by describing its three main characteristics. The first is the responsibility of government to the parliament; in other words, the government has not been appointed for a certain time. Parliament can remove the government at any time. The second characteristic is the election of the government: the government is nominated by the legislature, not elected by citizens’ votes. The third characteristic is the collective structure of the cabinet.

A presidential system is “a system where policymaking power is divided between two separately elected bodies, the legislature and the president, for fixed terms of office” (Gerring et al., 2009: 15). Sartori (1997) argues that there are three main characteristics of presidential systems: first, the head of state is elected for a fixed term by a popular election; second, the government or executive cannot be removed by a legislative vote; third, the head of state is also the head of the government.

Lijphart (1999) provides three points that distinguish presidential and parliamentary systems. First, in a presidential system the head of government becomes president as a result of popular election; however, in a parliamentary system the legislature is responsible for the selection of the head of government. Second, in a presidential system the president or the head of government remains in power for a fixed term; however, in a parliamentary system, there is no fixed term for the head of government. The prime minister and cabinet can be removed at any time by the legislature or may serve until an election is called. Third, in a parliamentary system the cabinet is collective, but in a presidential system it is not (Lijphart, 1999).

In addition to parliamentary and presidential systems, semi-presidential systems are explained by describing their three main characteristics. First, the president or head of state comes to power by direct or indirect popular election, has a fixed term of office, and is not responsible to the parliament. Second, the prime minister, who is not directly elected and does not have a fixed term of office, is the head of government and is responsible to the parliament. Third, the head of state shares executive power with a prime minister, which creates a dual authority (Sartori, 1997: 131; Elgie, 1999: 13).

From these descriptions, we can see that the relationship between the executive and legislative is the main distinction between the government systems. The primary point is the responsibility of government to the legislature. If governments cannot be removed by the legislature, the systems are presidential. If they can, the systems are either parliamentary or semi-presidential. In both parliamentary and semi-presidential systems, the parliament is effective in both the formation and survival of governments and has the power to dismiss the government (Cheibub et al., 2010). Government removal in such systems can be achieved by a vote of no confidence initiated by the legislature, a vote of confidence initiated by the government itself, or early elections, in which the government falls by virtue of the fact that parliament is dissolved (Cheibub et al., 2010: 14). The second point is whether the head of state is elected by a popular election or not. If the president is not independently elected, the system is parliamentary. If the president is independently elected to a fixed term of office, the system can be either presidential or semi-presidential (Cheibub, 2007). The third point is the responsibility of government to the president. If a government is not responsible to the president, the system is parliamentary; if it is responsible to the president, the system is semi-presidential or presidential (Cheibub, 2007). Other indicators used to distinguish government systems include the nature of the executive power and the division of power. In parliamentarism, the executive is collective, and there is a fusion of legislative and executive power. In presidentialism, the executive is individual, and there is a separation of power (Verney, 1992; Lijphart, 1999). The detailed features of parliamentary, presidential, and semi-presidential systems are shown in Table 1.2.

Table 1.2 Features of presidential, parliamentary, and semi-presidential systems

	Presidential	Parliament...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• List of figures
• List of tables
• Acknowledgments
• 1 Introduction
• 2 The structure of the modern Turkish Republic
• 3 Is the party structure of Turkey applicable to a presidential system?
• 4 The impacts of government formation on political, economic, and social development
• 5 Conclusion
• Appendix: Variables
• Index