23.05.2013 09:09
If we listen to some defenders of the presidential system in Turkey, we have to believe that the parliamentary system is the mother of all evils in the country.
If we listen to some defenders of the presidential system in Turkey, we have to believe that the parliamentary system is the mother of all evils in the country. On the other extreme of the emotional spectrum, we have people who seem to think that a presidential system is equal to a sort of "Putinistic" authoritarian illiberal electoral democracy where you have regular elections but not many rights and freedoms. Comparative politics literature that is based on not only theoretical deliberations but also many case studies teaches us that what is important is not the name of the system but actually its whole package. Thus, the discussions that only focus on some aspects of a system but disregard some other essential aspects are not proper academic discussions but part of propaganda and brainwashing.
The parliamentary system has not been allowed to work in the country by the bureaucratic oligarchy. In addition to the coups, constitutionally embedded guardians of the oligarchy such as the military-dominated National Security Council (MGK) and the anti-democratic Constitutional Court, the presidents who had many powers without political and legal responsibility were serious factors that inhibited the maturation of the parliamentary system in the country. Yet, despite all this, let us assume that a parliamentary system is not good for the country. In this case, what sort of a presidential system should we have so that while we do not suffer from the weaknesses of the parliamentary system, we also do not fall into the trap of an authoritarian regime?
Let us start with the "terrible coalitions" argument. It has been argued that because of our political culture that is not open to reconciliation, coalition governments are not effective. Well, structurally speaking, a proper, US-type, presidential system is actually a sort of coalition system since it has a strong separation of powers and unlike the parliamentary system, the president has to negotiate legislation with the legislature. Given our political culture, how will this work? If the president, similar to today, continues to determine the nominations for Parliament, we will have a fusion of powers which is Putinistic. What solution do Justice and Development Party (AKP) lawmakers suggest for this vital problem?
In order to prevent the centralization of power, in addition to other check and balance mechanisms, in the US presidential system, the state is decentralized, which is also the case in almost all parliamentary systems. In our country, governors are not elected but appointed by the state, and municipalities can only clean the streets and collect the garbage! Local governments and parliaments have extremely limited powers. Central governments and state-appointed governors have, let us say, 95 per cent of the political, legislative and administrative power. With a strong president, this Kemalist authoritarian system will only evolve into a hybrid "Putinokemalistic" system. What are the measures that the AKP lawmakers offer against such a grave danger?
In giving their answers, can they please assume, for just a second, that it is not Recep Tayyip Erdoğan but Devlet Bahçeli or Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu who will be the president in the new system? I am in favor of a decentralized system, strong local governments and elected governors. Yet, I am not a leader of a party that heavily relies on Turkish nationalist voters. Given the Kurdish problem and Turkey's Kurdish-populated Southeast, how is the AKP planning to convince its Turkish nationalist voters to accept strong local governments and elected governors?
Last but not least, can they please respond in detail to the criticism of scholars such as Ergun Özbudun, Levent Köker and İhsan Dağı, raised against the AKP's presidential system proposal to Parliament? I think, before haranguing us on the virtues of the presidential system, it is better for them to talk about their own proposal, which can tell us a lot about their intentions and understanding of democracy.
İHSAN YILMAZ (Cihan/Today's Zaman)