Politics Among the Parliamentary System Debates

In order to correctly evaluate the current political debates, the content of the concepts needs to be adequately understood. In the debates where the concepts do not fit, the differences of political views can come across to the extent that they can distort the facts. In this context, we can accept the state as an umbrella concept. The state is a political structure organized on a specific piece of land. People, land and sovereignty constitute the three basic elements of the political organization we call the state. Sovereignty, which is one of these three elements, can emerge in very different forms compared to the other two elements. Because the change in the perspective of the state as transcendent or instrumental can change the political organization of the state and the structure of sovereignty. The transcendent understanding of the state sanctifies the state and transforms it into a structure that prioritizes its own existence rather than its essential functions. The instrumental understanding of the state, on the other hand, considers the state at the other pole as a structure that emerged only as a requirement of necessity, according to the transcendent understanding. Metin Heper's work "State Tradition in Turkey" deals with the changes in the perspective of the state from the 3rd Selim period to the present. From the point of view of the functions of the state, we can say that the ideal approach is one that keeps the balance between these functions in the most rational way and that an approach between two poles is appropriate. Cem Eroğul “What is the State?” He mentions three basic functions of the state in his work; 1. Functions of the state in relation to the interests of the ruling class, 2. Functions of the state in relation to its own organizational structure, 3. Functions of the state in relation to the interests of the people. The balance of functions in these three areas is also the key to the effectiveness of the state. From this point of view, it is possible to put forward an original definition; The state is the balanced combination of the elements and functions that make it exist. I would like to point out that I do not use the concept of balance for affirmation purposes. Where and how the balance is established is the subject of political science. Let's put a comma for the concept of balance here and move on to another concept, the concept of sovereignty, which is one of the essential elements of the state, for further discussion.

There is no single definition of sovereignty in the literature. Sovereignty can be briefly called the monopoly of rule-making, the use of force. Sovereignty can also be defined as the powers of the state over its territory (territorial element) and its people. The thinker who added the concept of sovereignty to political science is Jean Bodin (1530-1596). According to Bodin, the basic characteristic of the state is that it is endowed with sovereignty. Emphasizing the indivisibility and inalienability of sovereignty, Bodin argues that the division of sovereignty will lead to feudal structures and destroy the state.[1] Considering that feudalism began to lose power and central kingdoms began to gain power from the 13th century, we can say that Bodin's views reflect the spirit of the time. While the sovereign is mortal, the sovereignty is permanent. It should also be noted that in this process, the bourgeoisie also gained power and the need for a sovereign who could provide himself with higher assurances gradually increased. Bodin, who defines sovereignty, displays an attitude that defends the rights of the bourgeoisie while specifying its limits.[2] This attitude necessitates defending that the sovereign's power is not unlimited.

However, the limitation of sovereign power is a subject that has been discussed by thinkers throughout history. In 1215, the Magna Carta is an agreement in which the King renounces some of his powers and accepts the limitation of his powers. In this respect, it is regarded as an event that laid the groundwork for the development of constitutions. Constitutions are texts that limit the sovereign power before they are texts that contain the principles regarding the functioning and organization of the state. From the point of view of the Turkish Constitutional history, Sened-i İttifak signed by Mahmut II in 1808 is a similar text and in this respect, it is accepted as a starting point for examining the constitutional processes in Turkey. Looking at the development line in Europe, it is seen that there is a process in which the sovereign power is constantly limited in terms of individual rights and freedoms. At one stage of this development (especially in the 17th century and beyond), great changes are also experienced in the use of sovereignty. Kings either begin to exercise sovereignty on behalf of the people with limited powers, or they renounce their sovereign power in favor of the assemblies formed by the people. In other words, when the first state societies were seen, the sovereignty, which was in God and represented by the kings who were his representatives on earth, had to be handed over to the people, where it belonged, by becoming flesh and bone over time. However, the boundaries of the sovereign power continued to be discussed along with the representation problem of the sovereignty. It is useful to limit the historical development in order not to deviate from the context of the subject.

At the present stage, the power of representation of sovereignty is unlimited, irresponsible and uncontrolled. 

It is not a mandate. It is not sufficient to use this authority in accordance with the Constitution and laws. It is essential to use it in accordance with the law and the generally accepted requirements of democracy. Here, we need to emphasize that democracy is a concept that develops in the historical process by incorporating different sets of concepts. In other words, it is essential that the political power that governs the political structure we call the state functions within a defined framework. Let's try to explain the subject with a description of the kind we see in mathematical problems. Let there be 4 different routes from city A to city B. Let each of these routes represent a policy approach. When you buy a ticket to go to city B, you know where the bus company and the driver will ultimately take you. But neither the company nor the driver will be able to take you to city C. As soon as you realize that you are trying to do this, you stop and get off the bus and try to get on a vehicle that goes to your destination. Of course, you can also apply to the court for compensation for material and moral damages. Therefore, the authority given by the people through elections is an authority with definite limits. Political power may apply different policies in public service delivery. However, acting in accordance with the constitution, laws and laws is not a political choice but a necessity.

Its main difference from other types of power is that the sphere of influence covers all country borders and has a monopoly on the use of force. However, the less the political power requires the use of force, the greater the legitimacy of the administration.[3] In other words, we can talk about the existence of an inversely proportional relationship between the use of force and legitimacy. Of course, the legitimacy we are talking about is not the legitimacy that creates itself with religious belief, but the legitimacy that derives its source from the people. This is not an expression that negates the use of force in cases where the maintenance of social order and the maintenance of authority necessitate it. However, a political power that uses force with an ideological attitude against the use of individual rights and freedoms in the constitution creates its own problematic of legitimacy. It is important that there are other control mechanisms beyond the legal framework that limits political power.

Accepting freedom as "the right to do whatever the law allows"[4], Montesquieu predicts that laws are a necessary condition for securing freedom, but it cannot be a sufficient condition. He argues that in order to control the political power, the legislative, executive and judicial powers should work in harmony with each other and inspect each other. Over time, this view takes its place in the concept set of modern democracy. While examining the laws in England, Montesquieu argues that three powers were embodied in a single person in the Ottoman Empire and Italy, and that this was a despotic structure. After what I have written so far, I would like to go back to today's discussions, leaving the issue of intellectual discussion.

Looking at the etymological origin of the word parliament, it is seen that it derives from the French word to speak, to negotiate. In today's sense, the parliament is defined as "the assembly or assemblies whose members are elected for a certain period of time by popular vote and whose main function is to legislate"[5]. Although the history of parliament-like structures goes back a bit, the real representation of the legislative power by parliaments was only possible with the nation-state structures that emerged in the 17th century and later. It is necessary to acknowledge the progressive role of the bourgeoisie in this development. In addition, the reflection of power struggles between political powers and parliaments on the stage of history has repeatedly revealed the necessity of effective control of political power by both the legislature and the judiciary. Ensuring this control is related to the organization of the legislature as much as the understanding of democracy. However, there is a fact that effective legislative control in parliamentary systems is usually possible with bicameral structures. Although the formation of the bicameral structure differs depending on historical conditions, the control of the legislature over the executive is effective in these countries.

It is possible to explain this activity in terms of management science. In unicameral structures, the decision-making processes are accelerated, but the accuracy is decreased; It is possible to say that the decision-making processes have slowed down in bicameral structures, but the accuracy has increased. The legislative process in the USA is a very rigorous and slow process, and there are serious discussions on this issue. Amending the US Constitution is quite difficult. In the 1920s, the prohibition of alcohol was added in addition to the Constitution (ammendment), but later on, it was more difficult to remove this prohibition from the Constitution as part of the protection of individual rights and freedoms. However, a correction in the text of the law is not expected one month after a law enacted in the USA. A similar situation is valid for almost all bi-parliamentary structures. In addition, there are measures in the legislation of each country that accelerate the decision processes in emergency situations. 

It is governments, not citizens, who complain about the slowness of the legislative processes of these countries. No government wants the policies it wants to implement to run slowly. Because the need for public support forces them to do what they want as soon as possible. Here a contradiction arises between speed and accuracy. It is easy to overcome this contradiction in unicameral structures, but the price of this is the domination of the legislature by the executive. The obstacles that prevent the political power, which provides the majority in the legislature, from doing whatever it wants, turn into a "procedure to be overcome" in time. The political power, which holds the majority of the parliament, is left with no power to curb it, and the state turns into a repressive device in line with the government's policies. There are examples of this in history.

The 1921 and 1924 Constitutions in Turkey envisaged a unicameral structure and it was an understandable choice in the years when the Republic was founded. With the 1961 Constitution, a bicameral period was started. Those who examine this period will see that the process that continued until the military coup on September 12 of 1980 contributed greatly to the history of Turkish democracy. With the 1982 Constitution, the Senate was abolished and a unicameral period was started. I think what really needs to be discussed is the reasons for this choice. Because with the 1982 Constitution, the balance between the legislature-executive-judiciary has been broken in favor of the executive. The “Presidential Government System” created with the constitutional amendment made in 2018 is the long-term result of the imbalance created by the 1982 Constitution. This is the result of the analysis that can be done here without going into the discussions of external determinants, but external determining factors played a supportive role, not hindering the current situation.

Within the framework of the work that has recently started under the leadership of the Nation Alliance parties, the strategy of returning to a "reinforced parliamentary system" with the changes to be made after an election is discussed. Considering the changes reflected in the press, there are no radical changes different from the 1982 Constitution. The most radical change is the “Final Account Committee”, which was organized to strengthen the parliament's right to budget. However, I think that a senate, which will be taken as an example from the practices in developed countries, can enable a structure that will enable the legislature to perform its duty of supervision over the executive. My suggestion regarding this is to form a senate consisting of 100 members and candidates with certain qualifications to be nominated by the parties, to be determined according to the nationwide vote rate and to be elected without any threshold. It would be more appropriate to reduce the number of deputies to 400. With these changes; It will be possible to ensure effective control of the legislature over the executive, the prestige and efficiency of the legislature will be increased, and it will be possible to provide a structure in which the executive is responsible to the legislature, with the representation of as many views as possible in the parliament.

I do not deal with the regulations on the judiciary and executive of the "enhanced parliamentary system" being studied, as it is out of the context of the subject we are discussing. The parliamentary system can be as effective and beneficial as the effectiveness of the parliament. Considering the social structure of our country, there are well-known reasons to think that the unicameral system will soon pave the way for conflicts between the legislature and the executive. Of course, another important issue is how the change can be made. I will leave the evaluations on this subject to our future articles. The issue on which the Enlightenment thinkers agreed is the political determination based on the understanding that "every people are the way their government does it". In this context, “political power is the main responsible for whether a people is free and virtuous or slave and corrupt”.[6] In other words, the designed system always has the potential to create unwanted surprises in the long run. The balance between the elements and functions of the state can be established through well-functioning political processes in the country. The public should be able to decide at what point and how this balance will occur. For this reason, the processes in which the subject is discussed are more transparent, which can give the society an opportunity to have a say about its own future.

With my love and respect…

[1] Ed. M.A. Ağaoğulları, Political Thoughts in the West from Socrates to Jacobins, İletişim Publications, Istanbul, 2011, p. 407-409.

[2] A.k., p. 410.

[3] Ali Öztekin, Introduction to Political Science, (10th Edition), Siyasal Publishing House, Ankara, 2016, p. 34.

[4] Ed. M.A. Ağaoğulları, ibid, p. 558.

[5] http://www.lugatim.com/s/parlamento, E.T. 27.01.2022

[6] Ed. M.A. Ağaoğulları, ibid, p. 532.