The government system is determined by the operation of the legislative, executive and judicial powers, which are the means of exercising sovereignty in the framework of the presence of the state apparatus. From the emergence of the state until the present day, it is possible to talk about the existence of government systems, regardless of how much democracy the state entails.
However, at present, it is possible to mention three significant systems of government. The three systems are the presidential system, the semi-presidential system and the parliamentary system. Rationalized parliamentarism can also be added to these systems.
In the first section of the present study, the general literature on the presidential system is addressed. The presidential system historically emerged in the United States as a reaction to the Westminster system. The presidential system is based on the strict separation of powers between the legislature and the judiciary and the single individual executive selected for a fixed term. In the United States, legislative power cannot dismiss the president. However, the president does not have the authority to present a draft of law. It could be argued that the US judiciary, which operates based on the Anglo-Saxon judicial system, has the authority to act independently from the Senate and House of Representatives majority. In the presidential system, if the political tendencies in the legislature and the executive are contradictory, it is likely that there will be a gridlock. However, it could also be argued that the stability of the government is prioritized in the presidential system based on the fact that the president is elected for a fixed term and cannot be dismissed without impeachment. At the same time, it is a zero-sum game. Due to this feature, the system is predictable. The electorate is aware of the fact that the winner will occupy the executive branch. However, several infrastructural elements are required for the system to prevail. It is possible to mention the facilitating factors for the system, such as the democratic culture, electoral system, political party system, independent jurisdiction and operations, supervision of the executive by the public and secondary legal regulations.
In terms of national practices, the presidential system is widely implemented in the United States as well as in Latin America ( Venezuela, Chile, Peru, Mexico, Colombia, Argentina, Brazil, etc.). The democratic ranking of the latter countries do not seem to be high. Thus, based on the tendency toward authoritarianism in the Latin American experience, there are several critics of the system. In the first section of the study, discussions on the presidential system are addressed.
The semi-presidential system, which is the second governmental system, is a hybrid between the presidential and the parliamentary systems. Thus it could be argued that the semi-presidential system was constructed to remove the inadequacies of the presidential and the parliamentary systems. The system consists of a duality between the president, selected by the people for a fixed term, and the prime minister, who works under the confidence of the legislative branch. Thus if the president and the prime minister belong to separate political tendencies, co-habitation (co-administration ) and search for political compromise are inevitable. The system, adopted in France with the Fifth Republic, is practiced in especially central and eastern European countries and Sub-Saharan Africa. In this context, with the amendment to the Turkish constitution enacted in 2007, a transformation to the semi-presidential system is under debate due to the presence of a president who is elected by the people for a fixed term and a prime minister who is mandated by a vote of confidence at the legislative. On the other hand, the nature of the semi-presidential system results in certain kinds of crises. In the first section of the study, the main parameters of the semi-presidential system, national practices and possible disadvantages of the system are discussed.
The parliamentary system, which is the third governmental system, is based on a legislative branch directly elected by the people and an executive branch composed of legislative branch members who govern under the mandate of legislative confidence. It is, therefore, a system based on the soft separation of powers. This system was first introduced in the UK and has been implemented in several European Union countries ever since. The assumptions that the parliamentary system could lead to governmental and thus political instability and general criticisms about this system are discussed in the first section of the present study.
Presidential, semi-presidential and parliamentary systems have been introduced. The third parliamentary system examined represents a tradition of about 150 years in Turkey. During this period, the parliamentary system has been interrupted by periods of military coups. In fact, constitutions designed by military junta regimes have changed the form and content of the parliamentary system.
The current 1982 constitution emerges as a structure that prioritizes a strong executive; the legislative and executive intermingle and the executive even controls the legislative. Debates on the intervention of the executive in the judiciary system and on an independent judiciary abound as a result of the soft separation of powers due to the nature of the system. In this framework, the first section focuses on a discussion on the Turkish parliamentary systems and on â rationalized parliamentarism,â which aims to reform the existing system as an alternative model. The propositions of rationalized parliamentarism, along with its theoretical framework, to render the Turkish parliamentary system functional are addressed based on the experiences of various countries.
In this context, rationalized parliamentarism is a system that establishes legal instruments to overcome the possible government crises that could arise in the parliamentary system and aims to provide government stability, leading to political stability. The tools of the rationalized parliamentarism are limitations on the motion of censure, the implementation of cooling-off periods, a requirement of an absolute majority vote for censure motions while in motions of confidence, the stipulation that only nay votes are counted and a consideration of the vote of confidence under the threat of dissolution as a constituent vote of censure. Rationalized parliamentarism, with these instruments, was proposed by the main opposition party in Turkey (Republican Peopleâs Party ) to resolve the existing problems of the parliamentary system in their election bulletin for the June 7 and November 1, 2015, general elections. However, whether the efforts to limit political power with legal instruments in the parliament via rationalized parliamentarism would serve the political stability is contentious. Finally, the first section of the present study also addresses rationalized parliamentarism.
Because the main topic of the study is the presidential system, the second section begins with a discussion of the historical development of the presidential system in Turkey. Thus the development of the post-1980 presidential system will be scrutinized. This date was selected as the baseline because Turgut Ăzal was the first to raise the issue of changing to the presidential system, which occurred within the framework of the search for an alternative to the parliamentary system structured by the 1982 constitution. At the beginning of this political journey, the Motherland Party (MP) and its chair, Ăzal, won elections, becoming the ruling party in 1983 in the first general election after the interim regime in the post-coup period. Ăzal, Motherland Party chairman and prime minister, won the 1987 elections as well and aimed to replace President Kenan Evren, whose term would end in 1989; at the time, Ăzal and the MP controlled the majority and had the required number of votes for election. However, what Ăzal did not desire was to lose control over his party after being elected president. In this context, he introduced the presidential system debate. Following Ăzalâs death, SĂŒleyman Demirel, the chair of the True Path Party, was elected president in 1993. Demirel continued the presidential system debate on the same grounds as Ăzal. These initiatives remained as short-lived rhetoric during the time due to the dominance of the military in politics. However, the rule of the Justice and Development Party (JDP) after the 2002 elections once again introduced the debate on the presidential system in Turkey. The presidential system, which remained an issue during the first years of the JDP government and was discussed by a number of powerful leaders, became tangible after the âExecutive Proposals â were presented to the Reconciliation Commission, established after the 2011 general elections. The proposal, however, did not become a motion in the Turkish Grand National Assembly because the consensus of all four political parties ( JDP, Republican Peopleâs Party, Nationalist Movement Party and Peace and Democracy Party ) was required.
On the other hand, the Executive Proposals were widely discussed by the public, especially the provision of the âpower of mutual dissolution,â which would allow the Grand National Assembly and the president to dismiss each other. This idea was considered to prevent political instability when the president and the parliament have different political views, although the provision could also produce political crises when used inadequately or with ulterior motives. Other topics of debate included the appointment of judges to the judicial organs by the president (half of the members of the High Council of Judges and Public Prosecutors (HSYK) and the Constitutional Court ), the obligation to pass a motion previously vetoed by the president with a three-fifths majority, the ability of the president to enact bylaws and the future of the separation of powers. Thus the second section of the present study assesses the âExecutive Proposals.â
The third section addresses the presidential government system that was introduced as a result of the consensus between the JDP and the Nationalist Movement Party in 2016 and discussed by the Parliamentary Constitutional Commission and the General Assembly. The presidential government system was first mentioned by National Movement Party Chairman Devlet Bahçeli at the Parliament Group Meeting on October 11, 2016. As a result of the negotiations between the JDP and the Nationalist Movement Party, the motion was sent to the Constitutional Commission of the Turkish Grand National Assembly (TGNA) on December 12, 2016; the commission started negotiations of the proposal on December 20, 2016. The bill, which was presented as 21 items during the nine-day commission negotiations, was reduced to 18 items and was approved by the commission on December 30, 2016. Negotiations in the General Assembly began on January 9, 2017. The second round of negotiations was completed on January 21, 2017. Following the publication of the amendments in the Official Gazette on February 11, 2017, the Supreme Board of Elections set April 16, 2017, as the referendum date. The presidential government system motion passed the referendum and was enacted.
The power of mutual dissolutionâthat is, the power of the Grand National Assembly and the president to dismiss each otherâwas included in the proposed presidential government system with the same test as developed in 2011 under the âExecutive Proposalsâ in the Reconciliation Commission discussions. Simultaneous dissolution is possible with a three-fifths majority vote in the legislative branchâthat is, 360 yay votesâand elections are held as a result. Thus, although the president is limited to a maximum of two terms in the office, the potential of the legislature to use this power could create interesting results. Also, the discussion on whether the power of mutual dismissal would lead to political stability or instability when the president and parliament have different political views are also addressed in the present study.
The power to issue presidential decrees was also included in the âExecutive Proposals â in 2011. In the said motion, it was stipulated that the president could issue a âpresidential decree â in matters that he or she deems appropriate in the exe...