Presidential system in Türkiye.

[Lure]

I don't really see how Erdoğan can abuse the Presidential system. I mean, if you put better candidate than Erdoğan in Presidential Elections, he will lose power.

If he won the Presidential Elections, but AKP would lose majority in Parliamentary elections, then he will lose power again.

I supported Presidential System even years before AKP could imagine that system as a possiblity, i suprised when i see that AKP want to put that system up. Presidential System will be in the few things AKP did good. Some pros of the system;

1) People will directly elect the Cabinet list, instead of waiting one Cabinet list from one political party leader 1 month after elections finished
2) "Legislature Power" and "Executive Power" will be separated.
3) There will be one government for guarantee, no more political destability. Elected President's Cabinet list will be the Government.
4) Elected President cannot make laws if his ideology lost majority in Parliament, but State affairs will keep working since there will be government.

Even Parliament will be more civilised institution since Government will be separated from Political Parties, most of childish discussions will be ended

If we dismiss the possibility of localization because of Kurdish problem, then who will make the appointments? Will you be happy that from the Imam in a village to governor in a city, one person will have the absolute power to appoint. In US attorneys, judges, teachers, police chiefs are all determined by local elections. Central government has no saying on that. The possibility of a coalition mimics this effect. Party A gets the ministry of Justice and Party B gets Ministry of education and both parties have a saying on different parts on government. In US Democrats can win the White House but the Attorney General in New Jersey might be a tough Republican. As you can see both parties are making some form of governing. Locking out an opponent political party for a decade from the government duties will only increase the tension.

We have seen the harm of reckless staffing by FETÖ coup. Do we still want to tie our country's entire destiny to one person? Or do we want to have some contingency?

Because let's get real, at some point Erdoğan won't be our leader. At that point single party rule in Turkey may end in parliamentary system. However in a country where 70% identifies themselves as right wing and 30% left wing, the presidential elections will almost always be pre-determined. Right wing party leader will always win. And this won't be a political victory. This will be a demographic reality.

 

[OguzSenturk]

Will you be happy that from the Imam in a village to governor in a city, one person will have the absolute power to appoint.

I don't understand your concern, in today's system they already can do it, with current laws. And if you mean appointing Governors instead of PKK and FETÖ governors, i %100 support it. It should have been 14 years ago. That is why we hated AKP in first place, they didnt do such things before. Hopefully they will keep it and take all the PKK/Fetö governorships back to the State's hands. Btw this has nothing with Presidential system, they can already do it and they are doing it.

Do we still want to tie our country's entire destiny to one person?

That is why we need Presidential System. In current system, elected Party rules both "Legislature Power" and "Executive Power", it means elected Party leader is like a Padishah in current system. If we change our system to Presidential System, both Government and Parliament will be divided and Legislature Power-Executive Power will be separated.

However in a country where 70% identifies themselves as right wing and 30% left wing, the presidential elections will almost always be pre-determined. Right wing party leader will always win. And this won't be a political victory. This will be a demographic reality.

I am sorry, but I do not believe in Right/Left thing. There are Nationalists in both "so called" Right and Left wings, and there are Traitors in "so called" Right and Left wings. So i don't believe any division like right/Left, but instead Nationalist/Traitor division. So i have no such problem like you described above. I am cool with that as long as elected President will be Nationalist (or have to act Nationalist policies)

 

[Lure]

I don't understand your concern, in today's system they already can do it, with current laws. And if you mean appointing Governors instead of PKK and FETÖ governors, i %100 support it. It should have been 14 years ago. That is why we hated AKP in first place, they didnt do such things before. Hopefully they will keep it and take all the PKK/Fetö governorships back to the State's hands. Btw this has nothing with Presidential system, they can already do it and they are doing it.

They can do it in parliamentary system by obtaining a single handed majority. It's not sustainable. If they can't get the majority in parliamentary system, that leads to coalition which means sharing the governing power with another party. Paliamentary system is not destined to be like today's Turkey. However in presidential system with a unitary republic you completely rule the entire governing power in the country. You can check every country. Either there is a form of locality (a.k.a federation, confederation, state etc.) or there is a coalition. Turkey's example of parliamentary system is real unique. 10% election quota has a major effect on this.

That is why we need Presidential System. In current system, elected Party rules both "Legislature Power" and "Executive Power", it means elected Party leader is like a Padishah in current system. If we change our system to Presidential System, both Government and Parliament will be divided and Legislature Power-Executive Power will be separated.

You say in today's system AKP is making all the appointments as they please. As I've told you this is just the case, not the requirement of a Parliamentary system. Presidential system also has such cases. A party can win both legislative and presidential elections. This will also lead to a similar single party power. Presidential system has no magic stick to solve the domination of state power. If anything, presidenital system might actually encourage it more.

I am sorry, but I do not believe in Right/Left thing. There are Nationalists in both "so called" Right and Left wings, and there are Traitors in "so called" Right and Left wings. So i don't believe any division like right/Left, but instead Nationalist/Traitor division. So i have no such problem like you described above. I am cool with that as long as elected President will be Nationalist (or have to act Nationalist policies)

I agree with you a 100% on this one. I will vote for the party that will be able to improve my country, make us safe and seek our international interest without chasing fantasies but being realistic and pragmatic.

However not everybody think like that. Same AKP made a joint operation with FETÖ to our own military. That country is invaded by a lot of forces, from East or West from Seljuk era to modern Turkey. However in no point in it's history, this army was humiliated like today in AKP era. Is this seeking our national interest? But a lot of AKP fans were cheering in the past when our best officers were arrested. Today they don't even say they are sorry. They just sh*t happens, it was FETÖ and go on. If you push them a little you can see that their hatret towards Atatürkçü officers in our military has never changed. They immediately start attacking them.

But unlike you and me such people has no backbone to vote for the national interest of our country. They only vote for AKP even if our country burns down on the ground. You might not have any problem with our founding principles. But a lot of people have that problem. And they can gather more then 50% with no hustle.

By the way in which media cooperation do you think our non-ruling party presidential candidates will be aired? As far as I remember, I don't recall watching Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu or Devlet Bahçeli in any TV channel. In evening news maybe 30-45 second cuts from their speechs are aired. That's it. Then people start to say we don't see Kılıçdaroğlu or Bahçeli anywhere. They are not a good opposition. Does it mean that they are not really doing anything when we don't see them around on TV? Are we sure such a heavy censorship on two very legitimate and mainstream parties in Turkey is legitimate?
One of those political parties are the founding party of Turkey by the way.

And one more thing. Everybody from real CHP (not that new social democratic Kurdish supporting scums brought there by Kılıçdaroğlu) has been telling that Baykal was a victim of a political assasination. Deniz Baykal even talked to Tayyip Erdoğan personally and told him to enlighten this conspricy. At that time no one from the government interested in that. Even after 2012 when the same organization made an operation to AKP they still didn't enlighten Baykal's case. They've waited until the coup and a few days after the coup they've said "oh we found the guys who made that conspiracy against Baykal". As if magically until after a few days of the coup no body knew who made that conspiracy against Baykal. Changing from Baykal to Kılıçdaroğlu simply changed the entire ideology of a political party that takes 25% vote. 1 in 4 for voters. I didn't like Baykal very much but at least he had political integrity. How about Kılıçdaroğlu? What is he? Where does he stands in political spectrum? And why the heck do we have to abide him? Because of a FETÖ operation?

Is it logical to change the political system in a country where the main opposition leader is changed by a conspricy and the new leader of the opposition is a trojan horse? Do we really need to do that in a point which designing even the major political parties is very easy? Shouldn't we clean up our political parties and change political party laws first and then switch to Presidential system?

 

[OguzSenturk]

They can do it in parliamentary system by obtaining a single handed majority.

That is true, but that is also true for Presidential System as well. If President's ideology party lose the majority in Parliament, they will lose Legislature Power, and it means Parliament can always change the laws and block President as they wish. But there won't be any big crisis in Turkey since there will be one working government individually.

You say in today's system AKP is making all the appointments as they please. As I've told you this is just the case, not the requirement of a Parliamentary system. Presidential system also has such cases. A party can win both legislative and presidential elections.

That is true, President and Majority Party in Parliament can be in the same political view. But if that happens, it will be happen by Nation's decide, that is what democracy is. It is still far way better than one Political Party leader to appoint both MPs and Government members.

By the way in which media cooperation do you think our non-ruling party presidential candidates will be aired?

It is up to Media's itself. In US (and most of the EU) Media TVs and newspapers decide who to support by itself (and sometime bought by Candidates, like hillary and donald trump did). There will always be bribery and degenerating in Media side. At the end, People will decide by itself. Ruling party or President candidate can lose the election even all Media shouts their names all around, it happened last year.

 

[Lure]

That is true, but that is also true for Presidential System as well. If President's ideology party lose the majority in Parliament, they will lose Legislature Power, and it means Parliament can always change the laws and block President as they wish. But there won't be any big crisis in Turkey since there will be one working government individually.

Block by doing what? After 2010 referandum judicial power is completely tied to ministry of Justice. So by definition a president will stil have a control over entire executive and judiciary power.

In presidential system some form of localization is a must. Executive and judiciary has never been completely tied to a single person let alone single party.

For example Yozgat may like the governor that AKP appoints to them but İzmir doesn't like it. Erzurum can appreciate the education system of AKP but Edirne doesn't. Why the hell should the people of Edirne must obey to teachers that AKP appoints to them? People of Edirne should appoints their own teachers and people of Erzurum should hire their own.

That's how presidential system is applied in USA. President has no saying in a state court or in the education system of the states. That's also a form of coalition. Democrat states can protect their secular education in a Republican president and vise versa.

In Turkey's unitary system president will have the absolute saying on everyting. A conservative president in Turkey WILL influence every inch of soil in this country.

In parliamentary system it'a possible to overcome this with coalitions. In presidential system within unitary system there is no way to have a coalition.

People in İzmir has no obligation to trust any attorney appointed by AKP in their city whereas people in Yozgat has no obligation to trust an attorney appointed by CHP.

This type of federal governing is unacceptable in Turkey because of Kurdish problem. Every people in Turkey makes sacrifice to protect their country as a whole. That's no problem.

That's why works perfect or not the only way for us to make it possible to include more then one party into our executive branch is coalitions.

That is true, President and Majority Party in Parliament can be in the same political view. But if that happens, it will be happen by Nation's decide, that is what democracy is. It is still far way better than one Political Party leader to appoint both MPs and Government members.

And what stops political party leader to select every mp in it's own party in presidential system?

This is not about presidential system. This is about political party law in Turkey which by the way AKP resists extremely to not to change.

It is up to Media's itself. In US (and most of the EU) Media TVs and newspapers decide who to support by itself (and sometime bought by Candidates, like hillary and donald trump did). There will always be bribery and degenerating in Media side. At the end, People will decide by itself. Ruling party or President candidate can lose the election even all Media shouts their names all around, it happened last year.

Then AKP is stupid for trying to control entire media? Making tax audit pretty much every thee months? A normal company in Turkey is rarely audited by the state.

Tuncay Özkan formed Kanal Türk. The government "invented" an astronomic tax debt. The tv channel was eventually sold to FETÖ. This is the definition of treason. Let's ommit this fact that the government gifted a TV channel to a terrorist organization, it's stil not democratic.

Have you ever seen a TV channel is taken away from it's owner and given to someone else in a major democracy?

And what happened after the famous 7th january election? Our "president" didn't fulfill his constitunal duty. Ignored CHP's constitunal right to lead coalition talks and immediately announced a new election. Then AKP got 50 percent vote.

In a mature democracy reelections are almost always avoided. It's even illegal to make a reelection in US. Yeah normally presidential election in US might not select a president. Third party candidates can grab enough votes to prevent any candidate get majority in Electoral College. Then they start to bargain for getting support from minor party candidates. They offer positions in the cabinet etc. They may even offer vice presidency instead of their running mate. If Electoral College can't select a president in that bargain period, then the issue goes to house of representitves. House of representitives select one president from one of the three most voted candidates. In this period House of Representitives MUST elect a president. There is no reelection in constitution. They consider reelection as a tool for influencing people's will. In Turkey people's will is influenced with a similar fashion. But instead of upholding our system and forcing them to form a coalition, we simply made reelection and elected AKP.

AKP doesn't play the game by the rules. They always try to bend or hack the rules to protect their rule. What should we do? Changing the rules and make it easier for them or forcing them to obey the rules and make their life harder.

A true nationalist should make AKP or any other abusive party's life harder. We have system for a reason. This makes us a respected country and makes us a nation.

 

[OguzSenturk]

And what stops political party leader to select every mp in it's own party in presidential system?

Nothing. I didnt mention this. My mention was "Political Party Leader will no longer pick Ministers like apples" since it will be President's mission, and Legislature Power-Executive Power will be separated.

Then AKP is stupid for trying to control entire media? Making tax audit pretty much every thee months?

"Media isnt everything" doesnt means "Media is nothing", i don't understand why you used that logic. It wont work in any area.

Block by doing what? After 2010 referandum judicial power is completely tied to ministry of Justice. So by definition a president will stil have a control over entire executive and judiciary power.

I didnt talk about Executive Power or Judiciary Power, i talked about Legislature Power which Parliament has.

 

[Lure]

Nothing. I didnt mention this. My mention was "Political Party Leader will no longer pick Ministers like apples" since it will be President's mission, and Legislature Power-Executive Power will be separated.




"Media isnt everything" doesnt means "Media is nothing", i don't understand why you used that logic. It wont work in any area.




I didnt talk about Executive Power or Judiciary Power, i talked about Legislature Power which Parliament has.

Whatever, let's agree to disagree. Obviously we couldn't find a common ground.

 

[Orez]

For example Yozgat may like the governor that AKP appoints to them but İzmir doesn't like it. Erzurum can appreciate the education system of AKP but Edirne doesn't. Why the hell should the people of Edirne must obey to teachers that AKP appoints to them? People of Edirne should appoints their own teachers and people of Erzurum should hire their own.

And people of Diyarbakir, Hakari, Tunceli......should also appoints their own teacher like they like ?

And what happened after the famous 7th january election? Our "president" didn't fulfill his constitunal duty. Ignored CHP's constitunal right to lead coalition talks and immediately announced a new election. Then AKP got 50 percent vote.

Seriously do you really believe that a coalition was possible ? With who ? CHP, MHP, HDP ?

This is why CHP is critized....they have a nuissance power which want to use it even if Turkey would only wasting time and resource.

What should we do? Changing the rules and make it easier for them or forcing them to obey the rules and make their life harder.

Be smart and negociate!
CHP should say : Ok for presidential system but in return we want lower the threshold.

Erdogan cannot refuse if he want to pretend that presidential system is for a better democratie, and nobody can say that a lower threshold is not better for democratie.

But CHP should certainly not do it, because CHP too love this threshold which protect the big party.

 

[bsruzm]

"When the Turkish republic was created by Ataturk in 1923, these cities were the only ones among all that applied to join that were not included within the republic. Ataturk wanted to include them, but he did not command the military strength necessary to battle the British for these oil-rich territories. In current discussions of Kirkuk and Mosul, Turks emphasize the role of the Turcomans who have lived in these territories for over a thousand years. It is interesting to note that both Bahceli and Turkish Chief of General Staff Gen. Huseyin Kivrikoglu are Turcomans." Turkey's Crisis, Iraq's Future, and the Wolfowitz Visit published by The Washington Institute on July 23, 2002

Nationalist leader Bahçeli signals support for referendum on presidential system

These will face a lot of things, interesting to note.

 

[Lure]

And people of Diyarbakir, Hakari, Tunceli......should also appoints their own teacher like they like ?

I've raised this issue. If you read again you can find. I don't want to repeat myself.

Seriously do you really believe that a coalition was possible ? With who ? CHP, MHP, HDP ?

This is why CHP is critized....they have a nuissance power which want to use it even if Turkey would only wasting time and resource.

I didn't say there were any possible combination. I've just gave it as an example of AKP's lack of respect for the rules. Even if this rules are constitution. They simply ignore whatever they want.

I don't even take your thesis about limited resource seriously. There are a lot wasteful spending that AKP does without any problem. What now? Will AKP be the only authority on what is wasteful and what's not? And more important, does our constiton has such an article about in case of wastefulness don't give coalition building right to other parties.

What you say is not upholding the rules but simply acting as it pleases you. This is not governing and Turkey is not a tribe.

CHP should say : Ok for presidential system but in return we want lower the threshold.

Erdogan cannot refuse if he want to pretend that presidential system is for a better democratie, and nobody can say that a lower threshold is not better for democratie.

But CHP should certainly not do it, because CHP too love this threshold which protect the big party.

I didn't say this part for CHP. I said this for us as the people.

But in case of CHP making negotations, well Erdoğan rejected abolishing election treshold.

Also CHP simply say they don't want presidential system and AKP says Presidential System is a red line for us. What type of Middle point do you propose.

Don't worry MHP is supporting referandum. Turkey will have a presidential referandum in a very short time. I don't expect anything less then 70%. I'm not even gonna bother and vote.

We are discussing something that is already destined to happen. Congratz if you're supporting it. I don't think it will, but I still hope that it will be good for my country.

 

[Orez]

I didn't say this part for CHP. I said this for us as the people.

But in case of CHP making negotations, well Erdoğan rejected abolishing election treshold.

Also CHP simply say they don't want presidential system and AKP says Presidential System is a red line for us. What type of Middle point do you propose.

Don't worry MHP is supporting referandum. Turkey will have a presidential referandum in a very short time. I don't expect anything less then 70%. I'm not even gonna bother and vote.

We are discussing something that is already destined to happen. Congratz if you're supporting it. I don't think it will, but I still hope that it will be good for my country.

This why this is called negociation...CHP don't want presidential system, Erdogan don't want lower the treshold...they can negociate but CHP is not smart enought to do it.

Why CHP and not AKP is blamed ? Because CHP need it much more than AKP which can go to referundum.

Erdogan is not man of ideal, he would accept to lost some legislature power if this give him a fast and more legitimate (directly in the parlement) executives power.

Erdogan cannot refuse, at least not if he want to pretend that is the best for Turkey, and CHP would win more respectbility being the first proposing to lower or abolish the threshold.

But problem, either CHP is not smart either or they prefer to have presidentiel system rather than to lower the threshold.

 

[bsruzm]

Former CHP Chairman Deniz Baykal signals support for Presidential System, says, "it has to be considered"

Later, he corrects a misunderstood:

I was responding to a claim that CHP can not win any election once the presidential system takes place in Turkey

___

Politics...

 

[OguzSenturk]

PM in live:" There are different Presidential systems in the world, some of them include Federation, some of them not. We aim our own system which will include 783.000 km square uniter area, without any division or such."

I am pretty happy about AKP didn't eat PKK's bait about federation. I hope they won't lie at the end and proposal will include uniter system.

 

[Baybars Han]

PM in live:" There are different Presidential systems in the world, some of them include Federation, some of them not. We aim our own system which will include 783.000 km square uniter area, without any division or such."

I am pretty happy about AKP didn't eat PKK's bait about federation. I hope they won't lie at the end and proposal will include uniter system.

sure....

 

[UkroTurk]

The PM : "If we dont accept presidential system, Turkey may be divided."
İ am frightened by the PM.