is turkey presidential or parliamentary

Is Turkey Presidential or Parliamentary?

Turkey has undergone a major political transformation in recent years, shifting from a parliamentary system to a presidential one. This has changed how the country is governed at the highest levels. So is Turkey now a presidential system or does it retain elements of parliamentarism? Let’s take a closer look.

The History of Turkey’s Political System

For most of its history as an independent republic following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, Turkey was governed under a parliamentary system. This was modeled after European democracies like the United Kingdom and France.

Under this parliamentary system, Turkey had a President as the head of state who fulfilled ceremonial and procedural duties. But executive power was held by the Prime Minister, who was the head of the government. The Prime Minister was the leader of the political party or coalition that held a majority of seats in the Grand National Assembly, Turkey’s unicameral parliament.

This meant that national elections determined which party would form a government and select the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister was dependent on retaining the confidence of parliament to stay in office. The parliament could force the resignation of the Prime Minister through a vote of no confidence.

The Rise of Erdogan and Calls for Constitutional Reform

This changed in the early 2000s with the rise of Recep Tayyip Erdogan as the dominant figure in Turkish politics. As leader of the Justice and Development Party (AKP), Erdogan served as Prime Minister from 2003 to 2014. He then became the country’s first directly elected President in August 2014.

Under Erdogan’s leadership, the AKP was able to win successive parliamentary majorities. This enabled it to control the parliament and consolidate power. Erdogan argued that the existing constitution, drafted under military rule in 1982, was inadequate for Turkey’s needs as a modern, democratic state. He called for a new constitution that would create a strong presidential system.

The AKP and Erdogan maintained that switching to a presidential system would improve governance and provide more stable leadership for Turkey. However, critics saw it as a bid by Erdogan to concentrate executive power in his own hands. Opposition parties like the Republican People’s Party (CHP) strongly opposed the proposed constitutional changes.

The 2017 Constitutional Referendum

In January 2017, the AKP introduced constitutional amendments to abolish the office of Prime Minister and replace it with an executive presidency. The amendments passed with a narrow majority in parliament, but failed to achieve the required two-thirds supermajority to directly enact the changes.

As a result, the AKP under Erdogan decided to put the proposed amendments to a national referendum. The April 2017 constitutional referendum proved highly controversial and divisive. The ‘Yes’ side led by Erdogan promoted the changes as heralding a “New Turkey.” But ‘No’ supporters saw the amendments as a dangerous step towards one-man rule.

Ultimately, the ‘Yes’ side prevailed with 51.4% of the vote. This meant the constitutional changes would go ahead. Turkey would now transform from a parliamentary democracy into a presidential system.

The Key Features of Turkey’s New Presidential System

The constitutional amendments passed in 2017 fundamentally altered Turkey’s political structures. Here are some of the key features of the new presidential system:

• Creation of an Executive Presidency: The amendments abolished the role of Prime Minister and strengthened the Presidency, transferring the bulk of executive authority to this office. The President is now both head of state and head of government. Prior to the referendum, Turkey’s President was mostly a ceremonial figure.

• Direct election of the President: Previous Presidents were elected indirectly by parliament. The new system provides for direct popular election of the President to five-year terms, with a maximum of two terms. Erdogan was elected President under the new system in 2018 with 52.6% of the vote.

• President forms government: The President is empowered to appoint ministers and Vice Presidents, forming the government or cabinet. Under the previous system, the Prime Minister did this based on who commanded a parliamentary majority.

• Presidential decrees: The President can issue decrees with the force of law in some areas, eliminating the need to go through the parliament. However, decrees cannot regulate fundamental rights.

• President dominant over parliament: The President has the power to dissolve parliament and call new elections, as well as veto legislation passed by parliament. Parliament can override the veto with an absolute majority. Parliament can also impeach the President through a three-fifths majority vote.

• Parliament retains lawmaking role: The amendments did not abolish parliament, which retains its central legislative functions. However, its oversight of the executive is reduced under the presidential system.

A Hybrid System?

While Turkey is now officially a presidential republic, some scholars have argued that the current system represents a “hybrid” between pure parliamentarism and pure presidentialism.

On the one hand, the President is not dependent on parliament like a traditional Prime Minister is. The President’s fixed term and direct mandate from the people provides him with a popular legitimacy that is separate from parliament. The President also forms and directs the cabinet.

On the other hand, parliament is directly elected and retains important legislative and oversight powers vis-a-vis the President. This requires more negotiation between branches than in a pure presidential system where the President’s party often dominates. Furthermore, if the President’s party loses its parliamentary majority, the President faces challenges getting legislation passed.

Evaluating the Outcomes of the New System

Turkey’s transition to a presidential system is still recent, making it difficult to definitively assess the outcomes. However, some early observations can be made:

• Consolidation of power in the presidency: The constitutional changes have allowed Erdogan to consolidate executive power in his position as President after over a decade as Prime Minister. But Erdogan’s opponents accuse him of using this to exercise authoritarian control and undermine checks on his power.

• Centralization of decision-making: The presidential system has resulted in more centralized and unilateral policymaking concentrated around the Presidency and Erdogan’s inner circle. Critics argue this reduces diversity of input.

• Presidential activism: The new powers granted to the Presidency have allowed more vigorous exercise of executive authority in some areas. But there are concerns about overreach.

• Parliament sidelined?: Parliament has arguably lost power relative to the old system, and must negotiate more with the executive. But it still plays a meaningful role in Turkish politics.

• Electoral legitimacy: Supporters of the presidential system say the direct mandate received by Erdogan in the 2018 election provides him with clear democratic legitimacy to govern. However, critics dispute the fairness of recent Turkish elections.

Debate about the merits of Turkey’s presidential system is likely to continue. But the constitutional changes have clearly altered the country’s political landscape, reshaping the workings of Turkish democracy. The power of parliament has declined, while the Presidency under Erdogan is now at the apex of both political and state authority.