Question: What political system does Turkey have? Presidential, parliamentary or semi-presidential?  Of course it depends on how you define the characteristics of each category, but if you take the two usual criteria, whether the president is elected and whether the president is the head of government, Turkey is a semi-presidential system since the referendum of October 21, 2007.  Many of the participants of the referendum (turnout rate: 64%) did not know what they voted on, some thought they were voting on the draft of the new constitution which was a hot topic at the time (items passed in Turkish).  That referendum was a reaction to the parliamentary impasse experienced during the election of the 11th president.  AKP, which gained a majority in the parliament in the general elections that took place in July 2007, got Abdullah Gul elected as president and prepared this constitutional amendment to make sure such an impasse won’t be repeated again.  The amendment changes the quorum rule for the parliament and changes the procedure for the election of the president such that the president is elected by general vote and for 5 years (previously 7 years) repeatable for one more term.  Introduction of presidential elections, coupled with the more-than-symbolic powers of the office (thanks to the 1982 constitution) makes Turkey a semi-presidential system like France.

So, Turkey is currently a semi-presidential system, although it still pretends to be parliamentary.  R. Tayyip Erdogan, the current PM from AKP, has recently hinted that the era of semi-presidentialism may last shorter than we would have guessed.  In a TV program where he answered questions of  journalists, he dropped the bomb and said that after the 2011 elections they may pass a new constitution introducing the presidential system.  Nevermind that he is so confident they will have the majority necessary to pass a new constitution after the 2011 elections, and focus on the new constitution.  His comments show three things: 1. He was very impressed with Obama during his recent visit to the US, 2. He is VERY short sighted (almost reminiscent of the roving bandits a la Olson) 3.He does not understand the principle of “separation of powers” or “independence of the judiciary”.

Before I elaborate on these points, let me say that I don’t think presidential systems inherently have an authoritarian tendency.  The causal arrows run in the opposite direction. That is: It is not that the presidential systems inevitably decay into authoritarianism because of the concentration of powers in the hands of a single person.  It is the opposite: polities that are structurally, culturally or institutionally predisposed to authoritarianism end up with presidentialism rather than parliamentarism.  Studying the institutional choices of former British colonies in sub-Saharan Africa after independence provides a lot of insights about this process.  One could also look at how the parliamentary systems of Europe developed (hint: most still have kings and queens as “heads of state”) or how semi-presidentialism in France came about (hint: de Gaulle).  So, in my opinion, if the polity is democratic already, presidentialism will not be the end of that democracy.

That said, I don’t think whatever level of democracy Turkey has can survive a presidential system, it will sure not be strengthened by it (as the PM suggests).  A presidential system is not even functionally necessary.  Turkey has a highly centralized (not federal) administrative system and government, and is geographically not so big (i.e. it does not need to balance regional interests as represented by the Congress vs. interests of the “whole country”/federal gov’t as represented by a President).  In addition, the very low levels of intra-party democracy in Turkey is not a good combination with presidentialism. Erdogan wants the presidential system for the wrong reasons, and that’s why it is a bad idea.

During the TV program, he openly states that he considers the current system to be similar to semi-presidentialism and thinks of this as a trial for a possible presidentialism.  He gives the example of the US as a system where presidentialism works, separation of powers is at its best and congressional approval is necessary for decisionmaking.  I think he was impressed by how Obama+House Ds could pull off the very controversial Health Care Reform and would like to have that kind of power himself.  Of course he missed the whole story of how the reform package that passed is very different from what it used to be, how much compromise it took to pass what passed, how much opposition and discussion there was within Obama’s own party, and how significant the efforts of Pelosi&co were.  He probably just got the part where Obama wanted health care reform bill and he got the health care bill!

How can I think that he is after the power and not the (possible?) efficiencies of this system?  The justifications he gives for this proposal are just naggings, that’s how.  He complains about Ahmet Necdet Sezer (without explicitly giving the name) and blames him  for not being able to do much in their first term in government.  Yes, Sezer was an active president, used his veto powers liberally, but I think it is unfair to blame the failures of the government on him.  If they didn’t devote their energies to hopeless pursuits like attempting to criminalize adultery, maybe they could get more done.  Just as Erdogan and his party reacted to the parliamentary impasse during the election of the 11th president by amending the constitution to eliminate the possibility of that episode repeating itself, they are reacting to the Sezer period’s “presidential opposition” by proposing changes that eliminate the possibility that a president stops them from doing what they want or from passing anything they want.  For their short-term goals of running the show “as they like it”, they don’t mind turning the system upside down.  (Yet, Turkish political history is replete with stories of how purposefully designed systems bite the designers in the ass.  e.g. Menderes authoritarianism -military’s post coup 1960 constitution- party fractionalization and parliamentary deadlocks).

Erdogan has previously shown that he does not exactly understand the democratic principles like “consensus” or “majority rule.”  He has expressed numerous times that having received 47% of the votes gives him the legitimacy to do anything and he does not need to compromise/negotiate with the other parties on anything (more than half a century after Menderes, still no improvement on the understanding of how electoral democracy works).  He is assuming that receiving a similar plurality -or best case scenario- a strong majority of votes in the ballots in 2011 will give him a strong mandate.  Menderes had told his voters they could bring the caliphate back if they wanted, Erdogan seems to be testing the waters to see if he can ask his voters to bring back the 21st century sultanate.  What’s presidency with a puppet majority party, no parliamentary negotiation and compromise and no independent judiciary?

One other principle he does not understand is the role of independent judiciaries in the separation of powers.  He keeps referring to “the elected” and “the appointed”: the parliamentarians (i.e. his majority) are the elected and the constitutional court judges are the appointed.  He complains that “the appointed” prevent things that 411 elected have passed.  Recent hot discussions on the AKP proposal for “judicial reform” also had the same complaint (among others) as motivation. Somebody has to check the constitutionality of the bills a president or a parliament passes and that body has to be independent from pressures of the president or the parliamentary; that’s a pillar of separation of powers (legislative, executive and judiciary, remember?).  Making the system presidential doesn’t relieve the system from judicial reviews.  Maybe Erdogan focused too much on the President-Congress relationships in the US and didn’t notice the Supreme Court?

If somebody with such an understanding of “democracy” becomes the head of gov’t in a presidential system, of course that polity will decay into authoritarianism!  The Turkish political system needs a massive restructuring before it can be compatible with a presidential system that is efficient and democratic.  I don’t think Erdogan and AKP are interested in that.

If Erdogan and his party are unhappy about the constitutional court or the president vetoing/returning their bills on the grounds of the bills’ unconstitutionality, they should just change the constitution rather than complaining about the c.court or the president!  The discontents of the post-coup 1982 constitution are not limited to the AKP, pretty much everybody wants it changed.  Unlike the coalition governments before itself, parliamentary arithmetics give an advantage to AKP to introduce a new, democratic constitution. They had a group working on a draft and a draft was circulated at some point.  But the effort died away (to the best of my knowledge).  There have been some piecemeal amendments, most in order to comply with the EU accession criteria (another effort that died away, to the best of my knowledge).  And there have been some hopeless attempts, attempts they knew would fail but still went through with in order to please their conservative constituencies, such as the amendment that would allow veils at universities.  Many are in expectation of a democratic constitution, many are rooting for expanded rights and freedoms through a new constitution; but the new constitution is not coming.  I don’t know what the excuse is.  It looks like they are waiting for the aftermath of 2011 elections.  Hoping to gain an even bigger parliamentary majority, AKP probably thinks they can introduce a new constitution/major constitutional amendments with minimal, or better yet, no deliberation and compromise.   And that, ladies and gentlemen, is “democracy, AKP style”!