The French Semi-presidential Model and the Nation's Alliance

The Nation Alliance Proposes a Semi-Presidential Model:

It is not known whether it is a twist of fate one year before the elections, but Emmanuel Macron's administration, which became a "lame duck" after the elections held in France on June 19, 2022, can give very important messages to Turkey and especially the Turkish voters before the elections. obviously, dear readers. Macron's first term was good, and his party was in the majority in the parliament. Now it is in the minority. Let's say it in Aziz Nesin's words, "Dude, what's going on?" Why am I saying that? Because the "Reinforced Parliamentary System", which the "Nation Alliance", which has not yet determined its presidential candidate, is trying to present with pomp, with great fanfare and mockery as if it were a brand new thing that has never been tried in the world, is being implemented in "Today's France". Well? The meaning is this: The "Strengthened Parliamentary System", which Iyi Party Chairman Meral Akşener emphasized emphatically, is almost the exact isotope of the "Semi-presidential Model" in France. Just like the isotope, the proposed model has almost the same chemical properties, with slightly different specific gravity.

What is the Semi-Presidential Model?

It can be said that the "Semi-presidential Model", which did not become widespread for a long time after Finland and the Weimar Republic, which are considered to be the first examples, was the choice of most of the countries that had just transitioned to democracy with the third wave of democratization in the early 1990s. During this period, most of the countries that gained their independence after the collapse of the Soviet Union, some of the French-speaking (Francophone) African countries and some Portuguese-speaking countries adopted the semi-presidential model. However, besides all this, France is important because the democracy experience in Turkey has been shaped according to France. Today, I can say that the "Contemporary Turkish Democracy" experience of "two hundred and thirty-three" years since the French Revolution of 1789, which continues the "Experience of the Fifth Republic", is extremely important. Another distinguishing feature of the issue is that France has evolved from confrontational parliamentarism to a hybrid solution, namely a semi-presidential system. (one)

The Ensemble (Union), the party of Emmanuel Macron, who was re-elected as President of France two months ago, lost its majority in the National Assembly in the general elections held on Sunday, June 19, 2022. 289 seats were required for a majority in the 577-seat National Assembly. According to the exit polls, the number of deputies of Macron's party remained at 245. In other words, the 289 seats required for power in the Assembly, which is the other leg of the two-headed administration, appeared as the need for 44 deputies. For this reason, it is considered that Macron, who is known as Little Napoleon, who is accustomed to ruling the country with the Statutory Decrees, may face difficulties in the reforms he wants to implement in the new period.

The NUPES (New Ecological and Social People's Union) alliance formed by the Socialist Party, Communist Party and Green Party, as well as the 'French Unyielding Movement' led by Jean-Luc Melenchon, came second in the election with 133 deputies, while the far-right Marine Le Pen's His party, the National Union, ranked third with 89 deputies. It is thought that Macron, who is expected to engage in permanent reforms that is not used to coalitions, may be forced into coalitions from the beginning of his second term, and that his need for the right and the center right may be more than anything else in the establishment of coalition governments. Various right-wing parties, including the centre-right Republican Party (LR), Union of Independents and Democrats (UDI), had 64 seats. (2)

Turkey's 233 Years of Democracy Adventure:

Including the theories, rules and institutions inherited from the Ottoman Empire, Turkey's democracy adventure continues on an ordeal road that has been going on for 233 years. It is seen that the Turkish intellectual, who is the locomotive in the Turkish democratization adventure, is obsessed with changing the constitution to a large extent, together with institutionalization. While evolving from absolutism to constitutionalism, from constitutionalism to republic as an evolutionary line, changes in government systems were also considered as secondary. It should not be forgotten that the breaking point of the process from the National Struggle to the Republic was the establishment of the Turkish Grand National Assembly in Ankara. Indeed, this period, which is described as a transition period, is described by the political scientist Mahmut Goloğlu, that the state institutions are in the capital, Istanbul; After the Parliament was dissolved by the Occupation Forces Command, he described the government of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey as the "Third Constitutional Monarchy", representing the union of forces established in Ankara. It should be emphasized that the momentum created by the Erzurum and Sivas Congresses, the transformation process into the national Kuva-yı Milliye movement, in other words, the first year of the Grand National Assembly can really be defined as the “Third Constitutional Monarchy”. However, both after the proclamation of the Republic, the changes in the "government systems" along with the constitutional changes have been at the center of the discussion.

In addition to this sentence, the change in the "government debates" started mainly during the preparation period of the 1982 Constitution and was brought to the agenda from time to time on different occasions in the following years. The debates on whether Turkey's transition to the presidential system is necessary or not, went to the next level in the last legislative period and continued increasingly both in the field of politics and in the academic environment. According to a classification made in 2002, 45% of a total of 190 countries have parliamentary regimes, 33% presidential and 22% mixed regimes. The semi-presidential system, the main feature of which is a two-headed executive structure, also contains some advantages and disadvantages attributed to both systems, since it contains some features of the presidential system and the parliamentary system.

Opinion of Defenders of the Semi-Presidential System:

According to the defenders of the semi-presidential model, the main advantage of this system is the view that the two-headed executive structure, which is the main feature of the semi-presidential model, can allow a degree of cooperation and power sharing among the competing powers. If there is violent political conflict between two opposing factions in a country, a semi-presidential system may be considered to allow for power-sharing. This is the presidency of a power, as the name suggests; the other power is the situation where it can share power by holding the prime ministership.

In this case, where each power center receives an institutional share, it can be thought that the probability of power centers to support the system as a whole will be higher than in a winner-take-all presidential system. The second advantage attributed to the semi-presidential system is that the head of state, elected by the people for a fixed term, has the potential to maintain the stability and legitimacy of the system, even if the parliament is divided and governments are unstable. In this framework, it is appreciated that the semi-presidential model can contribute more to the democratization process than pure parliamentarism. Undoubtedly, this situation has shown the opposite situation in practice.

Criticisms of the Semi-Presidential Model:

Four important criticisms of the semi-presidential model are considered as options that are thought to befall Turkey and that may cause Turkey to lose time:(3)

1. The first of these is similar to the criticism of the presidential system. Accordingly, the election of the president by the people may cause the political process to be personalized and may encourage the president to see himself above the ordinary processes and to disregard the rules of law. So much so that, in this system, which is extremely polarized and almost divided federative structures, the constitution makers strongly recommend the parliamentary system.

2. The second criticism is related to the two-headed government structure created by the semi-presidential system. The conflict between the head of state and the prime minister will inevitably result in many political maneuvers and intrigues that may delay decision-making, and may result in contradictory policies. It dictates a two-headed executive structure and a problematic system in which tutelage will dominate in terms of the relationship between the executive and the military. The hierarchical order, which is of central importance to the military, can become complicated, especially due to the multitude of hierarchical offices that include the chief of staff, the minister of defense, the prime minister and the president from the bottom up. This complexity may also bring about constitutional ambiguities regarding the subject of the military being subject to the elected civilian authority, which is one of the fundamental issues in democracies. In other words, a two-headed government can encourage the military to intervene in politics.

3. The third criticism is the possible “cohabitation” situation that may occur when the head of state and the prime minister are from different political parties, that is, it is related to the fragmented executive structure. Cohabitation can cause political congestion within the executive branch, and this can pave the way for non-democratic interventions in systems with poorly established democracy. While the defenders of semi-presidentialism see this as an advantage as it allows sharing of power among the competing actors, the critics describe this situation as the weak point of the system.

4. The greatest danger associated with the fourth critique is the serious danger posed by a divided minority government, which can be encountered when the president, prime minister, and any political party or coalition of parties do not have a majority in parliament. This situation, on the one hand, causes slippery/unstable coalitions/alliances and government changes within the parliament, on the other hand, it may cause the president to intervene and use his existing powers.

Conclusion:

In the Prime-Presidential system, the prime minister and the government are relatively responsible to the parliament; In the President-Parliamentarism system, the prime minister and the government are collectively responsible to both the parliament and the head of state and can be dismissed by both. All this dual distinction also reveals a stingy situation that may arise at any moment.

After all this, it can be said that the "Strengthened Parliamentary System" or in other words the "Semi-presidential Model" put forward by the "Nation Alliance", instability and government changes, can justify the president in terms of going beyond the powers stipulated in the constitution, and this situation is the main reason for Turkey's decision. It is considered to harm the democratization process. It should be noted that, first of all, III. Wave embodies the principles of human rights, separation of powers, freedom of thought and belief, and general and equal voting within the strengthening of mature modern Turkish democracy, dear readers.

Footnotes:

(1) Kasım Erdem, “Yarı-Başkanlık Sistemi: Teori, Pratik ve Tartışmalar” TBMM Araştırma Hizmetleri Başkanlığı, Karşılaştırmalı Hükûmet Sistemleri Yarı-Başkanlık Sistemi, TBMM Basımevi –Ankara, Gözden Geçirilmiş 2. Baskı / Şubat 2017, s.10

(2) Paul Kirby, “Fransa seçimleri: Macron'un partisi Ulusal Meclis'te çoğunluğu kaybetti”, BBC News, 20 Haziran 2022; https://www.bbc.com/turkce/haberler-dunya-61860850/Erişim Tarihi 22.06.2022/

(3) Kasım Erdem, age, s.5