Çeviriler

If a presidential system has already been adopted, that is to say if a “presidential” system is what we already have, then no major changes are necessary. You simply modify all existing laws and regulations accordingly, make them permanent, and thereby establish the new system. But this “solution” can be accepted world-wide as a “presidential” system only humorously by a satirical literature.

Why and how did the PKK disconnect from “the solution process”? How did it drag the HDP along and force it to fall into line? How did Demirtaş go from (i) beginning with targeting the AKP as the principal enemy during the election campaign, through (ii) now supporting and now criticizing the PKK’s resumption of armed conflict over the last four or five months, to (iii) total and unqualified support for the ditches-and-barricades policy since the beginning of December, and finally to (iv) virtually abandoning all thoughts of a “solution within Turkey”?

Regardless of how many elections you might have won and what sort of majority you might have achieved in parliament, governing Turkey requires you to be strong in yet another area. You have to be able to break the bureaucracy’s information monopoly and also impose a legislation that will ensure the transparency of following up on all decision-making processes, so that all decisions adopted by the government can be “exactly” implemented, i.e. in conformity with their essence.

If the aim were to create a system of autocratic domination, a presidential system would not be to the AKP’s or Erdoğan’s benefit. No “good” presidential system can provide the government with more power than what they already have. But it would make it easier overall to run the country, reduce all risks, and strengthen legitimacy.

Turkey is on the threshold of an important decision. Turkish society is not against integration, but we have not yet discussed to what extent the state is willing to perform it and whether it is ready for administrational difficulties.