Etyen Mahçupyan
The Turkish original of this article was published as Başkanlıkta makulü aramak on 7th January 2016.
Obviously, fast and effective governance is crucial for a country that has a significant potential for achieving development and affluence, and which is capable of undertaking a massive leap forward if it can keep in step with global dynamics. In this regard the presidential system has a clear advantage over a parliamentary system. However, the social acceptance of a presidential system requires the change to be based on legitimacy, and to be deemed sensible and reasonable for society as a whole.
There are a few conditions for attaining such legitimacy. First, the system has to be based on a “reasonable” distribution of authority and responsibility. That is, the mutual boundaries of the legislative and executive powers must be clearly defined, and there must also be a precise job distribution within the executive. But even more importantly, this division of duties, powers and responsibilities must receive the “approval” of society. Second, decision-making processes must be supplemented with a “reasonable” supervision mechanism, enabling an effective a posteriori supervision of the power exercised by the executive, as well as a formal social evaluation of all such decisions before all their consequences have been finalized. Third, the election system and the makeup of the legislation must ensure fair representation.
It would be difficult for this society not to prefer a presidential system which fulfills these conditions. Especially if this system is propounded by a political party that already claims 50 percent of the popular vote, we should be facing almost a “smooth transition.” But this does not seem to be the case. Field studies have been providing the same results for quite some time. Those saying “yes” to a presidential system are around 35 percent. This is worth noting and questioning, since it indicates that a third of AKP voters, too, do not approve of the transition to a presidential system. On the other hand, it is also hard to argue that all those who don’t vote for the AKP are categorically opposed to the presidential system. If we had posed the question for any other country, at least 10 percentage points of those who voted for parties other than the AKP would have come out in favor of a presidential system.
Hence the AKP is faced with a clear question: Why is a level of support level that could easily rise as high as 60 percent, currently limited to no more than 35 percent? There are two legs to the answer, for there are two different groups that the government has to contend with. Those who support the AKP but are not saying yes to a presidential system are concerned with the “quality” of whatever is done, and they need to be convinced that this transition is being handled properly. This group is likely to be persuaded when they see that the conditions above are met and when they are handed a “reasonable” proposal. But this may not be enough for a majority vote at a probable referendum, for as much as 5 percentage points of AKP supporters may still be categorically opposed to a presidential system. Hence, support from non-AKP voters will also be needed. But for such voters, simply proposing a good presidential system may not be enough, since the main problem with this group is that their mental outlook extends to an inveterate hostility against the AKP and Erdoğan. So if any support is to be obtained from this group, first this mentality has to revert back to normal. This, in turn, is closely related to just how and how much Erdoğan is going to be involved in the presidential system debate, and probably also to his general attitude and how he is perceived in public.
At the end of the day, transition to a good presidential system may really prove to be good for our country. But the proposal to be put forth must also be really “good,” capable of being taken to heart, of being found sensible and reasonable by society at large. And not even that is going to be sufficient. The process and the systems debate itself must serve to lessen rather than heighten the existing tension, so that the message that the general good is being sought can be clearly perceived and embraced by everyone.