Reflections on the Strengthened Parliamentary System

Dear friends, the "Presidential Government System", which was adopted in our country with the 2017 Referendum and started to be implemented with the 2018 elections, has brought many problems in practice. Approaching the problems with a systematic perspective, away from personalities, will help to move the issue from political debate to scientific debate. When we consider it in this context, the change of the government system in our country was actually realized with the 2007 referendum. However, the first presidential election was held in 2014, and after this date, a de facto semi-presidential system began to be implemented with the election of the President by the people. We can see this concretely in 2016 when Prime Minister Davutoğlu was asked to resign. In another dimension, Turkey went to the referendum in 2017 under a "semi-presidential system". The excessive use of state power before and during this referendum can be seen as an indicator of what was to follow. However, although R. Tayyip Erdoğan resigned from his party when he was elected President as a constitutional obligation, he retained his influence over his party. In the period until 2018, this led to a de facto form of government that was closer to a semi-presidential system than a presidential system. But is this a problem? If so, why is it a problem? What should be the solution? In this article, we will seek answers to these questions.

When a vehicle is manufactured, the brake system is designed depending on the weight of the vehicle. The brake system that will stop a 10-ton truck cannot be the same as the brake system that will stop a one-ton vehicle. Or the brake system in a vehicle that can reach a speed of 300 km/h must be different from the brake system in a vehicle that can reach a speed of 180 km/h. Similarly, in a governmental system, the systems that will oversee the executive should be designed according to the weight of the powers granted to the executive. The biggest problem with the presidential government system is that it is not controlled by adequate braking mechanisms commensurate with the weight of the powers granted to the President and the speed of decision-making. Based on the known examples in the world, there is no country other than the USA that can effectively implement the presidential system within the institutional structure of democracy. Depending on the country in which it is implemented, the system may produce objectionable results such as authoritarianism, corruption, corruption and favoritism. In addition, it should be noted that since the sociological, cultural and economic realities of each society are different, the way government systems are implemented in each society may differ more or less from each other. However, balancing and limiting political power is very difficult and often even impossible in governmental administrations that do not adhere to the principle of separation of powers. 

What comes to mind when we think of government systems?

The political organization, which we call the state, formed by a people on a certain piece of land on the basis of sovereignty, is governed by a structure within itself. The structure tasked with governing the state is called the government. The way this task is assigned is linked to the structure of the state. However, it is useful to make a very important terminological caveat here. The task of governments is not to govern the people. The people have sovereignty and this sovereignty is an indivisible, inalienable right. The people exercise their sovereignty through authorized organs (legislature, executive, judiciary). The government represents only one of these organs, the executive. In the context of the separation of powers, which has become one of the fundamental principles of democracy, when we talk about systems of government, we are only discussing the structure of the executive and its relationship with the other powers (legislature and judiciary). In other words, the answers to the questions of how the government is determined, to whom it is accountable, by whom it is supervised, and how it takes decisions inform us about the structure of the government system. Accordingly, the main characteristics of government systems are as follows;

a. In a presidential regime, the president elected by the people exercises executive power alone with certain limitations. There is a strict separation of powers. The legislature and the judiciary are separate from the executive and have checks and balances on it. The president's term of office is limited to the term for which he or she was elected. The president has no authority over the legislature and the judiciary. Ministers are technical working teams appointed by the president and are accountable to the president. 

b. In a parliamentary system, the executive emerges from the legislature and depends on its confidence. The executive consists of the prime minister and the council of ministers. Each minister is responsible to parliament for his or her ministry. The powers of the head of state are symbolic and the parliament elects the head of state. Although criticized for the lack of clear boundaries between legislative and executive functions, countries are able to manage this through their traditions, legal order and culture of democracy. 

Although criticized for the lack of clear boundaries between the functions of the legislature and the executive, countries are able to manage this through their traditions, legal order and culture of democracy. Bicameral parliaments are the most well-known structure to prevent the legislature from being under the influence of the executive. In this system, the legislature and the executive have the power to influence and control each other.

c. A system in which the head of state is elected by the people but has a cabinet responsible to the parliament is called semi-presidential. In this system, the executive power is shared between the head of state and the prime minister. The absence of problems depends, to a large extent, on the fact that the boundaries are very clearly drawn. 

In general terms, government systems can be listed in this way. However, as important as these systems are, it is important to keep in mind that the government, as the executive power, represents only a part of the sovereignty of the people. Sovereignty belongs unconditionally to the nation and this fundamental principle requires the recognition that whatever the system of government, it must be subject to oversight.   

Consensus Text on Strengthened Parliamentary System

The "Reinforced Parliamentary System" consensus text, which was drafted by six opposition political parties advocating a return to the parliamentary system in the future, was published on February 28, 2022. The text, which aims to repair the flaws of the parliamentary system based on previous experiences, includes many important innovations.  One of the most important of these is the requirement of a constructive/constituent vote of no confidence for a motion of no confidence to bring down the government. Accordingly, "the dismissal of the government will be conditional on the election of a new government by an absolute majority of the total number of members of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey". This seems to offer an important solution to the problems of stability in the parliamentary system in Turkey. 

Another important innovation is that amendments to the Rules of Procedure can be made with a qualified majority (2/3). This is really important. Previous experience in this area shows that amendments pave the way for the executive to dominate the legislature and a political figure who has been able to establish absolute authority over the party group can evolve into an authoritarian style of governance. In this sense, preventing the easy amendment of the Parliamentary Rules of Procedure, which is perhaps as important a legal text as the Constitution, should be seen as an important step. 

Regarding the judiciary, it is important for the independence of the judiciary that the Minister of Justice and the Undersecretary of Justice cannot be part of the Council of Judges in the envisaged system. Although there are sometimes gray areas in the relations between the legislature and the executive, the independence of the judiciary is very important, especially in terms of judicial oversight of the executive. Again on the judiciary, it has been determined that the election system of the members of the Constitutional Court affects the independence of the Court. However, in order to solve this problem, it would be beneficial to revise the selection system. Instead of direct nomination of candidates by the Presidency, it may be more beneficial to implement a system of proposing names that can be accepted by the parliament. 

The MoU does not envisage any changes in the structure of parliament. The establishment of a final accounts commission is a very positive step for oversight. However, it would be useful to make a fundamental observation here. The 1982 Constitution and the abolition of the Senate paved the way for the executive to influence the legislature. In other words, the 1982 Constitution is the source of today's problems. Reconsidering the senate option for a strong parliament may have a positive impact on the credibility of the text put forward by the opposition. Therefore, it would be useful to elaborate on the issue of a bicameral parliament.

What are the Reasons for the Existence of Bicameral Parliaments?

One of the most important features of the parliamentary system is the dependence of the prime minister on party members (or coalition partners in the case of a coalition) despite his/her position as a decision-maker in the executive. This unwritten rule can be broken depending on the leadership structure in political parties. A leader who has absolute control over his party can indirectly rule the legislative power if he or she secures an absolute majority in the parliament. In other words, one of the main criticisms of the parliamentary system is the loss of boundaries between the legislature and the executive. The solution to this problem of the parliamentary system in the historical process is the bicameral structure of parliaments. The second chamber strengthens the legislature in a way that frees it from its passive position vis-à-vis the executive and functions as a check and balance. 

In bicameral parliaments, the second chamber may exist for different reasons. For example, in England, the aristocracy, which thought that it had lost its power with the House of Commons, was able to maintain its presence in the system within the House of Lords. In addition, the bicameral structure emerged as a necessity in federal states. There may also be second chambers due to class differences. However, from a democratic point of view, second chambers may be preferred to provide a balance mechanism and to improve the quality of legislation. From this perspective, the existence of a second chamber (senate) will both strengthen representation in parliament and improve the quality of legislation. Although bicameral structures are said to slow down and prolong decision-making processes, this problem can be solved by authorization laws on decision-making mechanisms in emergencies. Moreover, today, bicameral parliamentary structures are used effectively in countries that are advanced in democracy. On the other hand, in Turkey, laws passed in the unicameral parliamentary structure are soon followed by "omnibus laws" to correct the issues that were written in the laws as a result of carelessness. Therefore, it is considered that a bicameral structure would be positive for Turkish democracy. 

A Solution Proposal

The lowering of the threshold to three percent envisaged in the text of the strengthened parliamentary system is a positive step for democratic representation. In addition, there may be different approaches to the composition of the senate in a bicameral structure. Here, I would like to propose a senate as an example. A senate consisting of 100 senators could be established. There would be no threshold for the selection of these 100 senators based on the percentage of votes received by the parties participating in the elections across the country. Any party (and therefore the voters who voted for it) that gets more than one percent would be represented in parliament. The age requirement of 40 years and a university degree to be elected as a senator may be useful given the functions of the Senate. When appointing members of the Supreme Judiciary, the Senate votes on the candidates proposed by the president. This prevents personal preferences from influencing judicial appointees. The Senate also reconsiders and votes on laws approved by the parliament. What does this ensure? First of all, it promotes consensus. It contributes to a healthier legislative process. It determines the legislative activities that the First Chamber can carry out without the Senate. Thus, the workload can be distributed in a balanced manner. To put it briefly, such a senate promotes a culture of compromise in politics, enhances the prestige of the legislature, increases representation, and balances the power of the executive in all circumstances. Elections for this senate would be held three years after parliamentary elections. This would provide another opportunity for the people to oversee the government. 

Conclusion

Every society is governed by a system appropriate to its culture. However, the system should never be determined by personal preferences. Under the 1982 Constitution, Turkey has evolved into a (unique) presidential system and is governed by a system that is incompatible with its social structure and democratic past. Moreover, this system has been implemented without any research on its necessity, with decisions taken without the proper public policy processes, and without seeking qualified social consensus.  Regarding the election result changed by unsealed ballots in the referendum, based on Article 101 of the Law on Basic Provisions of Elections and Voter Registers No. 298 dated April 26, 1961 and amended by Law No. 5980 dated April 8, 2010, it is clearly stated that the votes will be invalid. Kemal Gözler emphasizes that the issue is technically clear by stating; "If the provision of the law is clear, there is no interpretation. ln claris non fit interpretatio" (1). 

Our aim here is to emphasize that the current system is not the result of scientific and natural processes, rather than a legal debate. Turkey is an important country with its population and geopolitical position as well as its economy. If a return to a "Strengthened Parliamentary System" can be realized in a process that does not exclude the people of the country, this will be beneficial for the peace and future of the country. The only question that remains in my mind in all this debate is: "Should it be so easy to change a system that determines the future of the whole country?" 

Bibliography:

(1) Kemal Gözler, "The Unsealed Ballot Discussion: A Review of the YSK's Decision No. 560 of April 16, 2017", Turkish Constitutional Law Website, April 19, 2017. https://www.anayasa.gen.tr/muhursuz.html