A Turkish proverb goes: “when a bald man dies, they say he had golden hair,” meaning that what was ugly or worthless seems beautiful or valuable once it has been lost. Six years after the death of one of Turkey’s leading political figures, Necmettin Erbakan, this saying has been viable for the attitude of the main opposition, the Republican People’s Party (CHP). From the 1970s onwards, Erbakan established four different political parties – all of which were shut down by military coups or judiciaries serving tutelage regimes. The CHP is known to have served as the civilian leg of the tutelage regime that polarized the nation through secularism and the Kurdish question for years and acted as the fiercest opponent of the Erbakan wing. The party also applauded the fall of the coalition government formed by Erbakan’s Welfare Party (RP) and the center-right True Path Party (DYP) on February 28, 1996.

When Abdullah Gul, who was also from Erbakan’s wing, was elected president in 2007, the CHP appealed to the Constitutional Court with the support of the military against Gul’s presidency on the grounds that the first lady was wearing a headscarf. For some reason, they did not oppose to the presidency of Koksal Toptan, who came from Suleyman Demirel’s wing although he was within the same party as Gul. As a result of an appeal filed by 134 CHP deputies including the party’s current chairman Kemal Kilicdaroglu for the cancellation of the election, the court cancelled the election with a scandalous ruling.

On February 27, 2018, the Felicity Party (SP) held a commemoration ceremony for the former Prime Minister Erbakan who passed away in 2011, one day before the 22^nd anniversary of the February 28 memorandum. The CHP Chairman Kilicdaroglu also attended the ceremony and delivered a speech, which was televised live on pro-CHP Halk TV. Kilicdaroglu said he did not hesitate for a moment when he was invited and said “dear friends” while addressing an audience whom his party called reactionary for decades. After expressing that Erbakan was a widely-esteemed national figure and an exemplary patriot, Kilicdaroglu added that he was a politician who made no concessions on his beliefs, undauntedly fought all the pressures and was elected as prime minister thanks to democracy and his resoluteness.

Of course, Kilicdaroglu did not mention how he was overthrown. But while saying that “he did not pit the state up against the nation,” he implied that Erbakan did not defy the overthrowal of the democratically elected government by the military, hinting that point as a compliment. The crowd listening to his speech also seemed to have forgotten all the past incidents although the ones inviting and applauding Kilicdaroglu were once Erbakan’s colleagues. Apparently, they could not accept the fact that Recep Tayyip Erdogan founded the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) and achieved to be the ruling power for 15 years after leaving the RP.

At the latest election, Erbakan’s SP received 0.68 percent of the total vote. As this is added to the CHP’s 25.31 percent vote share, it still amounts to 25.99 percent. What really matters here is not the material effect of the 0.68 vote share. For the upcoming presidential elections, Kilicdaroglu aims to receive more than 51 percent. He says that what he wants to achieve is around 60-70 percent, which is a challenging task since there is no candidate as of yet. He probably won’t run for election. However, according to his statements, he can even support Gul, whose presidency he objected before, if Gul wants to run. It is not yet certain who will be the candidate, what kind of methods will be employed and whom they will ally with. On the other hand, the vote shares of the AK Party and the opposition Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), who decided to form an alliance for the presidential election, were respectively 49.99 and 11.90 percent in the above mentioned election. If the Great Union Party (BBP), who has 0.54 percent, joins the alliance, the total share will amount up to 62.43 percent. To consider the CHP’s alliance options, the largest party among others is the Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP) with 10.76 percent, while the rest are as follows: The left-wing nationalist Patriotic Party (VP) with 0.25, late Bulent Ecevit’s Democratic Left Party (DSP) with 0.07, the Communist Party (KP) with 0.11, the People’s Salvation Party (HKP) with 0.18, the center-right DYP with 0.03, the Nation Party (MP) with 0.04, the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) with 0.06, the Independent Turkey Party (BTP) with 0.11, and the Rights and Freedoms Party (HAK-PAR) with 0.23.

Excluding the HDP, the total vote share of all the above-stated parties with different ideologies amounts to 1.08 percent. Plus, there is the newly established Iyi Party chaired by former MHP member Meral Aksener. According to surveys, the party will receive around 5-6 percent from the electorate of the CHP, the MHP and the AK Party, so it can be asserted that the party will not affect the overall vote splitting. However, even though both parties retain their vote share, the CHP and the Iyi Party from the nationalist tradition are concerned about being in the same bloc with the HDP, whose public image has been tarnished due to the party’s link to the terror group PKK. In this respect, Erbakan’s party has a symbolic importance rather than its material contribution in terms of vote share since it might add an Islamic and nationalist dimension to a possible alliance. The SP, meanwhile, is feigning reluctance to both sides due to its assumed value.

Over the past few years, the political arena in Egypt has witnessed an unprecedented period of oppression. The leading indicators of this situation can be listed as Abdel Fattah al-Sisi administration’s harsh stance towards the peaceful opposition after seizing control of the state with a military coup in 2013, the exclusion of the civilian agents in the country from political processes and growing human rights violations. One of the main reasons for the Sisi regime’s ease in practicing such oppressive policies is the silence of the leading Western democracies to the Cairo administration, as has been clearly observed throughout the period running up to the presidential election, that is to be held on 26-28 March, 2018.

Egyptians will vote for one of the two candidates, President Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi and Moussa Mostafa Moussa, the leader of liberal Al-Ghad Party, who has been a strong supporter of Sisi regime. It is observed that Moussa does not pose any threat to Sisi in the presidential race. All possible rivals of Sisi have been eliminated in varieties of ways by the state authorities in the pre-election period. What is shocking with this process is that no Western democracy issued a condemnation of Sisi regime’s ruling out all its possible rivals in the election by arresting or intimidating them. In order to illustrate the situation in a more explicit way, it would be useful to take a look at the events leading to the election period.

Several candidates stood out as potential candidates for the presidential election in Egypt, including Ahmed Shefik, who is among the prominent actors of the old regime and was a resident of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) for the past five years, the former Chief of General Staff Sami Anan, the lawyer and activist Khaled Ali who is known for his remarks opposing the Sisi regime, and Egypt’s former top auditor Hisham Geneina, who was discharged from duty in March 2016, following his statement that he would unravel the corruption in the country. After the National Elections Commission announced the election schedule, these names kicked off their efforts to officially run for the election, during which people had a glimmer of hope that different names might compete for the presidential seat. But what happened during the candidacy application period displayed the Sisi regime’s determination to hold on to the ruling power.

Sisi purges the dissidents

Ahmed Shefik, a candidate for the election, returned to Egypt from the UAE, where he has lived for the past five years, after he published a video announcing his candidacy on social media. Brought under the surveillance of security apparatus as soon as he entered the country, Shefik had to waive his candidacy following the contacts he made with intelligence officials. It was alleged that the pressure of the Sisi regime’s intelligence service has been instrumental in Shefik’s decision.

Sami Anan’s candidacy application was also rescinded as he was taken into custody because of his intention to run for the presidency. The ground for the cancellation is shown as “political engagement during his military service.” Although Egyptian authorities issued statements in line with this justification, it can be said that the cancellation of Anan’s candidacy has impeded one of Sisi’s strongest rivals.

Meanwhile, Khaled Ali and Hisham Geneina, who also attempted to run for the election, decided to withdraw after considering the judicial and physical assaults against them, the experiences of the other candidates and the political oppression prevalent in the country. Ali announced in a press statement that he would not become a candidate whereas Geneina announced his withdrawal after he was subjected to a knife attack.

On the other hand, another development that occurred in February showed that the political oppression in the country targets not only those running for the presidential election, but all the dissidents. Abdel Moneim Aboul Fotouh, who adopted a conservative-liberal political stance after leaving the Muslim Brotherhood following the Egyptian Revolution in 2011 and achieved a considerable popular support with the Strong Egypt Party he initiated, was detained after his house was raided following his criticisms of the Sisi administration in a TV broadcast. It is argued that Aboul Fotouh was detained only because of his criticisms to the regime. This incident is noteworthy as it clearly illustrates the extent the political oppression in Egypt has reached. Arrest of Aboul Fotouh drew reactions from various dissident groups in the country and human rights organizations.

The West is silent to the violation of rights

Another noteworthy aspect with regard to this oppressive environment throughout the Egyptian presidential election is the silence of the Western countries in the face of the incidents. As a matter of fact, this situation is parallel to the Western political attitudes towards Egypt in the aftermath of the coup d’état in 2013. It has been observed that many Western countries displayed a positive approach towards the Sisi regime despite the antidemocratic practices, violations of rights and economic instability in Egypt. Western countries and the Sisi regime organized many official contacts, signed partnership agreements and engaged in coordinating activities in many fields after the coup, all of which are concrete indicators of their support to Cairo.

Sisi paid an array of official visits to Italy, the Vatican and France in November 2014 as part of his European tour. Having paid visits to Germany and Hungary in June 2015, Britain in November 2015, and Greece in December 2015, Sisi also made official contacts in Portugal and France in 2016 and 2017 respectively. Similarly, many European leaders visited Egypt and contributed to the recognition of the Sisi administration as a legitimate government despite all the human rights violations it engages in. A number of politicians including the German Chancellor Angela Merkel, British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, Austrian Chancellor Christian Kern, Vatican Leader Pope Francis, former French President Francois Hollande and the U.S. Vice President Mike Pence paid visits to Egypt in the post-coup period.

Among these countries, France has provided a considerable degree of support to the Sisi administration in many respects. During Sisi’s France visit in 2014, Paris approved the selling of high-tech defense products, including fighter jets and battleships, to Cairo, which stirred a reaction among human rights groups. Having gained profits corresponding to multi-billion dollars from the agreements, France has maintained this approach up until today. The incumbent French President Emmanuel Macron also hosted Sisi in Paris in October 2017 and expressed his pleasure in the continuation of the cooperation between the two countries.

In response to the criticisms made on the violation of human rights in Egypt, Macron said the following words at the joint news conference with Sisi: “I believe in the sovereignty of states, and therefore, just as I don’t accept being lectured on how to govern my country, I don’t lecture others […] My deeply held conviction is that it’s in President Sisi’s interest to accompany the defense and consolidation of human rights by the Egyptian state, in the context that only he can be the judge of.” His remarks stirred controversy both in France and abroad.

Although thousands of dissident civilians have been jailed, democratic values have been breached and a strict policy that disregards the freedom of expression and press has been pursued since 2013, Macron avoided issuing any criticism on these matters, which is significant in terms of displaying the Western countries’ general approach on Egypt and the Islamic world.

Western countries have also provided economic support to the Sisi administration. Several giant financial institutions such as IMF and World Bank, credit rating agencies, global capital owners and international corporations displayed a positive approach to Egypt in the aftermath of the coup in order to consolidate the power of the Sisi regime. Long-term loans were granted to the country whereas efforts have been exerted to create a positive image for the Egypt’s economy, and attempts have been made to create an impression that global capital is eager to enter the Egyptian market. Therefore, various engagements corresponding to multi-billion dollars were contracted in the economy and investment forums organized to that end.

Along with the actors in Egypt and the Middle East, the Western democracies have a major role in the oppressive regime’s increasing anti-democratic practices that do not allow any dissident voice. Considering the stance of these countries after the Egyptian coup, it can be contended that they do not have any concerns regarding democracy or human rights and are shaping their policies in line with certain economic and political interests. It is more accurate to regard the Egyptian presidential elections as a new step toward consolidating the oppressive regime, which was established with a global political support rather than a step towards democratization, indeed the country is far from it.

The French are getting more used to far right by the day. The enemies and targets of the far right movements change, but their ideas are the same. It could be said that after a couple of decades of inactivity, they are full of life now. As they’re no longer contained in the far right parties but exist within both right-wing and left-wing party, this wasn’t a challenge. There are other variables, of course; during Edgar Morin’s childhood Jews were the target of the far right, now it’s Muslims. For instance, when Jean Marie Le Pen had overtaken Socialist Party Leader Lionel Jospin in the presidential elections and ascended to the second round with Chirac on April 21 2002, it took France by surprise.

At that time, Jean Marie Le Pen was the representative of Front National’s both anti-Semitic and xenophobic streaks, while the former was more dominant. On May 1 2002, the French public took to the streets to protest in masses; with the call of all unions in France, 1.5 million people went out to the streets, 400,000 of them being in Paris, and newspapers ran headlines like “No!” 15 years later, according to the French Ministry of the Interior, there were a little bit more than 140,000 people who went out on the streets to protest Le Pen on May 1.

In the first round of Presidential elections, Jean Marie Le Pen had garnered 16.86% of the votes, while Chirac took 19.88%. Receiving the lowest support of the Fifth Republic, Chirac received 82.21% of the votes as a result of the mobilization of all voters; therefore, he was elected president with an unprecedented percentage since the time of the Soviet Union need to oppose Le Pen. Today, his daughter Marine Le Pen made it to the second round of elections with 21.3% of the votes and, according to recent polls, there is around 40% support for her.

There are two important factors explaining this. Firstly, Marine Le Pen, unlike her father, didn’t say anything that might sound anti-Semitic; she targeted Muslims rather than the Jewish minority. Secondly, Islamophobic discourses, which used to be associated with the far right, were embraced by reputable figures in both the right and the left, who have started to utter them with impunity. As a matter of fact, it was normalized. We have to give Marine Le Pen her due; whatever discriminatory statements she made while campaigning were already surpassed by numerous figures of the right and the left a long time ago.

Muslims have been exposed to the foul statements of many: Alain Finkielkraut, Elizabeth Badinter, Plantu, former prime minister Manuel Valls, Sarkozy and so on. However, if Jewish lifestyle and belief was to be boycotted and protested today, all hell would break loose in France! Think about what would happen if the kippa, or Jewish clothing became an issue, or the long beards of Jewish men; or if Jewish children were forced to receive an extremely Orthodox education at kindergarten; or if Jean Pierre Chevenement’s “advice” to Muslims, to make themselves less apparent in the public, was intended for Jews… However, it’s not possible; you cannot replace Muslims with Jews in these kinds of situations. It’s not allowed, because anti-Semitism is a crime against humanity. For something to be a crime against humanity in France, it has to be tried at Nuremberg. What was tried there? Genocide. Therefore, without genocide and a trial on genocide, nothing is a crime against humanity, at least in the Old World. Returning back to Edgar Morin’s childhood, when Jews were being targeted but the Holocaust wasn’t committed yet, anti-Semitism wasn’t considered as a crime against humanity; therefore, by this logic, today Islamophobic statements and acts are not a crime against humanity.

We have seen the most recent instance in a statement by Phillippe Moreau Defarges, a professor of International Relations. On the show on BFM, Defarges, referring to the recent referendum on the change in system of government in Turkey and 51.41% yes vote, said “after this point, the only way to get rid of Erdoğan is either a civil war or an assassination.” The moderator didn’t signal to take the show off the air, nor did he say that Defarges was committing a crime and that they were becoming an accessory to it; the moderator only said “this is an illegitimate proposition.” Defarges even said more: “This is a method that has been discussed since Ancient Rome and religions have even discussed it.” There weren’t any reactions towards Defarges’ statement about a president who was elected in the first round with 51.79% of the total vote. Let me tell you why: Islamophobia.

Marine Le Pen has been updating the extreme right ideology since her father’s departure from the party, and she has been doing this in accordance with the “zeitgeist.” Therefore, in the context of “zeitgeist,” neither Marine Le Pen’s success in the first round, nor her projected score in the second round, nor the possibility of Front National having 50-60 seats in the parliament after June elections is creating the kind of ripples seen in the past. When talking about her Islamophobic and anti-immigrant statements, at least… Although her statements about Frexit, leaving NATO, having a Russia-friendly foreign policy and return to French franc concerns the majority. If you examine it, the understanding of the majority is also disputable; if you consider leftist presidential candidate Jean Luc Melenchon has a similar outlook on the same issues and he had 19% support in the first round, the concerned “majority” doesn’t surpass 50%.

On the other hand, now that the two largest political formations of the country, the Socialist Party and the Republicans, were eliminated in the first round, the race is not between the traditional left and right. French people will make their choice among two different world views rather than two candidates about whom they know nothing of. An economic, cultural and social liberalism, which is in favor of the EU and globalization, versus a hegemonic French nationalism that is against the EU and globalization – these are the choices. For some this is a cartoon, while for others a sci-fi film; however, it’s very real.

One of the candidates is a deputy of the European Parliament, a parliament of the very EU she is against; while the other served as the former minister of finance and economy under François Hollande and is competing for the first time in the elections. If we are to think that one of every two French votes was cast in protest, it could be seen that Macron’s vote in the first round was not that high. What’s worse is that Macron isn’t expected to garner around 80% of the votes against Le Pen; it will be considered a triumph if he can merely surpass 60%. Yet, this is problematic, as support to Madame Le Pen is around 40%.

Moreover, there isn’t any consensus between the right and left in terms of supporting Macron who is already being supported by big business. It’s not that easy anymore. There is an increasing indignation towards global capitalism and the cost of the 2008 financial crisis by the people of both the Old and New World. While more than 20 high schools in Paris marched against Marine Le Pen, there were as many high schools, which did the same against Macron. When CFDT, the most prominent union of the country, called people to vote for Macron, their headquarters were vandalized. “Collabo” (Collaborator) was written on the building. Another union, Force Ouvriere, on the other hand, didn’t make any statement about which candidate they support. Some called to “destroy” both of the candidates. Regardless of their political disposition, there are politicians and voters who won’t hesitate in voting for Le Pen. Furthermore, parliamentary elections are to follow the presidential elections. For this reason, Melenchon, who is aiming to form a powerful group in the parliament, didn’t call for support to any candidate; he just expressed that he wasn’t going to vote for Le Pen.

Despite all odds, if Macron is able to garner more than 60% of the vote on Sunday, he will be able to administer the country with a strong mandate. However, if the opposite happens, he might have to cohabitate as Mitterrand and Chirac have done. Either way, it seems that Macron will be the 7th president of France after De Gaulle, Giscard, d’Estaing, Mitterrand, Chirac, Sarkozy, and Hollande. On the other hand, there are no obstructions that can halt Marine Le Pen’s progress. Even if Le Pen loses the presidency, her ideology will prevail in both the right and left wing politics.

Some of the French say “Britain has a real democracy under the cover of monarchy, while France has a real monarchy under the cover of democracy.” Thus, it’s not the system of government which determines democracy; it can either exist or not exist in both situations. On the other hand, the French president is the most powerful one on the world, beside the periods of cohabitation. This power and influence becomes more prominent with the president’s individual character. For instance, François Mitterrand was regarded as a demigod. Similarly, former French president Valery Giscard D’Estaing expressed the extent of presidential authority during an interview on his experiences. “The office of the French President holds so much power that you become the most powerful man [completely disregarding the possibility of a women president] in France, which you can understand from the looks of women in the whole of France,” he said. Even though D’Estaing’s perception of presidential power can be regarded more in line with a sexual fantasy, it’s definite that the President of the Fifth Republic has prominent authority and power due to a system that was gifted by Charles de Gaulle. This gift is called the semi-presidential system, and it’s definitely more powerful in comparison with a president in a parliamentary system, however, the odd part is that the French president has more power even than the US president.

“The same person not being both the prime minister and the president is absolutely normal; however, it is also definite that the state can’t be dicephalus,” Charles de Gaulle said at the time, making a distinction between the roles of the president and the prime minister, while signifying that the principal rule was of the president. Regardless of the person occupying it, the office of the prime ministry is nothing but an ornament in France. While saying “a president who abides by the constitution is a man of the people and he is elected to shape the destiny of his people,” de Gaulle has expressed the very essence of the president’s authority. The French President appoints the ministers, has the right to abolish the parliament, determines the country’s foreign policy, and can gather all powers unto himself/herself during the times of crisis.

In France, many amendments regarding the authority of the president were implemented since 1958; however, most of these amendments produced an increase in the presidential authority. For instance, with an amendment in 2000 the president’s term was decreased from 7 years to 5 years and it was prohibited for the president to be elected more than twice; however, as the parliamentary elections were to be held right after the presidential elections, the risk of cohabitation was also removed. In this sense, the president became more engaged in the matters, because cohabitation periods were similar to the coalition between politically incompatible parties, causing the president to be isolated.

We can understand Turkey’s both old and current systems by evaluating the power of the French president. For years, the Ministry of National Education described the president as “ceremonial” in the schoolbooks they prepared and compared with the German president. When we became adults and saw the system functioning, we understood that it was more than just ceremonial. The system of government’s name was always the parliamentary system, since the foundation of the Republic of Turkey. Separation of powers wasn’t implemented at the time of Atatürk, the republic’s charismatic founder, and his successor İsmet Pasha had also followed this trend.

After the transition from a single-party system to a multiparty system in 1950 and following the military coup which resulted in the hanging of Prime Minister Menderes, the 1961 constitution consolidated the power of the state institutions against the elected officials. Similarly, the 1982 constitution which was prepared by the junta which orchestrated the September 12 1980 coup, immensely increased the power of the president. It was believed that the tutelage existing since the foundation of the republic could be perpetuated by the president who was elected by the parliament and was under the influence of the military. For many years, they were successful in achieving their aims. As was made clear with the coup that resulted in the hanging of Prime Minister Adnan Menderes, no ruling political party, besides the one they supported, would be able to fully control the government.

In the first years of the Justice and Development Party (AK Party), the Minister of the National Education said “I was powerless in appointing bureaucrats and colleagues in my ministry.” As it required the approval of the president, it was impossible for ministers to appoint their own personnel. President Ahmet Necdet Sezer was stonewalling all appointments. This resulted in either the deadlocking of the system or the appointment of a person favored by the president. With the right to veto, the president was the most engaged head of the executive. In other words, the president of the parliamentary system didn’t have less authority than the French president in a cohabitation period.

For many years, these “safety fuses” which were implemented with the 1961 constitution functioned. The Constitutional Court of Turkey made a decision to renew these safety fuses, a decision which would be deemed scandalous in the years to follow. Hayrünnisa Gül, the wife of the presidential candidate Abdullah Gül, wore hijab. This was unacceptable for both the military and the main opposition party. For them, a first lady wearing hijab couldn’t enter the Presidential Palace. Let alone the first lady, a woman wearing hijab wasn’t allowed into the presidential palace ever before, even as a guest! Meanwhile, the smaller parties in the parliament were pressured by the military to not support Gül, even though, according to the constitution, Gül had received enough votes to become the president. With the statements from the military, and the CHP’s, the main opposition party of the time (and still today), appeal to the Constitutional Court, the court decided that the vote Abdullah Gül received wasn’t adequate. The poll was canceled.

This illegitimate crisis, which aimed to block a politician’s way to Çankaya (the location of the old presidential palace) just because his wife wore hijab, and triggered a new development. Previously, there was a president which the military tutelage employed to “shape the upper ranks of bureaucracy and limit politics” and had consolidated power pushing the limits of the parliamentary system. This time, something new happened: to resolve the crisis, the AK Party amended the constitution in 2007. The amendment was put to a referendum and was passed by a simple majority of the public’s votes. The president was now to be elected by popular vote. This amendment in 2007 added a new layer to the president’s power with the clause of “popular vote” by changing the Article 104 of the 1982 Constitution. It could be said that the long effective system backed by the military tutelage, which tried to keep the government’s reigns out of the hands of parties like AK Party, benefitted the AK Party government at the end, despite all the suffering it has caused.

The referendum in October 2007 transformed Turkey into a country that is governed through “a de facto semi-presidential system.” As the rest of the system wasn’t designed with a presidential system in mind, it created crises which the national will had to resolve every time they emerged. This caused the presidency to become “an executive with ambiguous limitations and authorities that could expand according to the characteristics of a person.” In this form, it’s pretty similar to the French system; however, this doesn’t mean that it has no quirks. Both the president and the prime minister are powerful in this system. Beside the ones that could emerge in a time of “cohabitation,” this system is prone to crises even if both of the executives are of the same party!

Even though the international community didn’t understand what was going on, the July 15 coup attempt, which was orchestrated by a parallel and parasitic structure within the state institutions, aimed to reestablish the status quo by deposing the government. Now the government started to fight against this organization which infiltrated the state, while continuing to fight against PKK and Daesh. A state of emergency was declared in Turkey. The AK Party government is now cooperating with the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), which came to the fore as a result of the political conjuncture, to pass a constitutional amendment.

This amendment is aiming to change the system of government, instead of a full new social contract. It foresees replacing the existing faux semi-presidential system with a complete presidential system. “It is easy to criticize; however, believe me, what he is doing is really hard. He is driving a car and someone intentionally crashes into his car. But he doesn’t stop. While driving, he is repairing his car and he is changing the tires of the car without stopping,” a Parliament member and friend of President Erdoğan said about the man.  Erdoğan, it should be remembered, was sentenced to prison as soon as he emerged as a prominent politician, and faced party closure trials and memorandums that tried to force his policies in a certain direction.

Despite all the illegitimate attempts aiming to depose him, Erdoğan received 51.79% of the votes in the first round of presidential elections and became the president. The highest percentage of votes to be received by any candidate at the first round in Turkey, and one of the highest in the world. The people will vote on the constitutional amendment this spring while Erdoğan keeps driving the car. If it is accepted, Turkey will be governed with a new system.

The draft currently being debated in parliament focuses on the essence of the relationship between the legislative, executive and judicial branches and the primary features of a presidential government system. Called the Presidential System indigenous to Turkey, the draft aims to discuss the design of checks and balances between state branches. In this context, there are two points vital for ensuring majority support in the parliament for the president: the timing of constituency and presidential elections, and the formula for presidential elections. After that, other checks and balances instruments, the decree power of the president, the power to repeat elections for both parliament and president, and the procedure for budget preparation can be discussed.

Concurrent Constituency and Presidential Elections

There are two attitudes towards how the timing of elections effect the majority support of the president in parliament. The first one argues that concurrent constituency and presidential elections could create a problem in terms of checks and balances, and such an election could mean both a majority of parliament and the president could be elected from the same political party.

The other argument is that the possibility of differentiation between the president and parliament would increase if elections were held at different periods. Especially, this possibility could become evident with runoff elections. The consequence of this difference would be a parliament that reflects the political mood at one point, but not at the point when the president is elected, leaving the two bodies out of step with public will.

A considerable part of criticism against the current amendments argues that they leave the legislator with little power against the executive. The supporters of this argument state that concurrent elections for the legislator and executive would lead to a political majority in both branches from the same political side. However, while empirical research based on comparative examples supports this argument, some research also shows that there are experiences which prove this argument wrong.

Even more, as the system is presented in the current amendment, runoff elections in the presidential system could reduce the occurrence of a political or ideological divide in state organs, thanks to coalitions based on popular political figures, especially in the second round of elections. So, the argument that such a system would lead to a single party dominating both the executive and legislative branches, should not be accepted as an absolute given.

Moreover, there is a reasonable argument for justifying the amendment: getting rid of instability created by the current parliamentary system. There are some executives working with a political majority in the legislatures that are from an opposing party. This situation is called a divided government, and leads to a deadlock in the system, especially for tasks that require cooperation between the legislature and the executive. So, concurrent elections should be evaluated in terms of solving this problem.

Mutual Power to Call for New Elections

Another issue of synchronism between the legislature and executive is having the same expiration date for these state organs. If this was the case, it would be possible to prevent the occurrence of an asymmetric balance of power between them, a situation which draws attention to another issue in the proposed amendment: a mutual power to call new elections for the presidency and the legislature.

One of the weaknesses of the presidential system is the possibility of a deadlock because of a strict separation of powers and related with that, a situation where both organs cannot cease the existence of each other. Apparently the amendment aims for the avoidance of the threat of deadlock in the system by granting the power to call new elections to both the president and the parliament.

Clearly, the proposed solution is not a common mechanism in current global examples, where presidents generally have the right to unilaterally call for a new parliament, called a rescission of parliament. Presidential systems in which presidents have the right to unilateral rescission, especially in Latin America states, experience regime crisis frequently, and when presidents are elected from non-political figures, meaning presidents who are not popular, the risk of a crisis increases. In practice, different political ideologies in the branches of power could ease dissolution, and in such systems, there are no constitutional mechanisms to safeguard against this problem. There are not many examples of this power for the president or legislator in presidential systems. Today, the constitutions of some countries in Latin America, such as Peru (article 134), Ecuador (article 148) and Venezuela (article 236) give this power to presidents.

For example, article 12 of the proposed amendment envisions a mutual renewal of elections. According to the draft, the Turkish Parliament (TBMM) can decide on new elections with a 3/5 ratio of total members, and in this case, the election of both branches is done together, and this concurrency is also valid if the decision to hold new elections is made by the president.

On the other hand, if parliament decides to repeat elections in the second term of office, the president can become a candidate one more time. The parliament and the president which will be reelected will be in power until elections occur. Also both the parliament members and the president will be elected for 5 years.

With this proposed amendment, the parliament and president would have the right to call for fresh elections. Thus, presidents do not solely have the power of dissolution of government, but either the legislator or the executive could decide for new elections, and as the amendment proposes, such elections would be for both branches, preventing this decision being made in an arbitrary manner. In effect, whoever decides to call for fresh elections must themselves be confident they will win power again.

Runoff Elections for the President

Part of the amendment, which is not so different from the current system, suggests runoff elections for president. In the first polling, if any candidate cannot win an absolute majority, there will be a second poll in which the two candidates who have the highest votes in the first poll would compete. In this poll, the candidate who has the plurality of votes will be elected as president. This ensures that there will be reconciliation (no matter the vote ratio in the first poll) on the winning candidate. So this situation would strengthen the democratic legitimacy of the president.

Presidential Enactments

According to a survey of current global systems, presidents as the head of the executive have the power to publish regulatory administrative acts to carry out or develop policies. In the United States, for example, the constitution does not give power to decree law directly to the president, but they use this power based on Article 2 of the constitution. These enactments, called “executive orders,” are administrative acts and also very important instruments for building various institutions, organizing or changing bureaucratic processes and executing laws which have already been approved by the legislature.

In the Turkish amendment being currently considered, there is a proposal to give the president power to enact such orders. According to Article 9 of the amendment, which aims to change article 104 of the current constitution, the “president can publish an enactment on executive issues.” In the same article, there are restrictions and rules on this power that preclude any such enactments from effecting:

• Fundamental rights, individual rights and duties stated in the first and second parts and political rights and duties in the fourth part in the second section of constitution.
• Issues which should be regulated exclusively by laws according to constitution.
• Issues which are regulated by laws clearly.
• If the enactments conflict with laws, the provisions of the law are valid.
• If parliament passed a law about an issue which is regulated by enactments, laws replace the enactments.

These restrictions and rules circumscribe the limits of executive orders, and will not violate legislative power, a major criticism of enactments being they could act as a de facto legislative power. Certainly, the same criticisms can be made of the power to publish statutory decrees by the government in the present system, and governments could publish these statutory decrees under empowering laws which are passed by parliament. So, according to the amendment, the president could have this power without empowering law.

However, it should be considered that current presidential systems are based on a strict separation of powers. Even more, the requirement of taking permission from parliament by the presidency as an executive position cannot be compatible with the spirit of a presidential system. At this point, it could be said that the limits of presidential enactments are not clear in the amendment. For instance, in article number 9 in the draft, there is a regulation with the issue. These regulations aim to prevent any damage to fundamental rights and freedoms that could be done by enactments. In the amendment, fundamental and individual rights and duties, as already enumerated in other parts of the constitution, are preserved clearly. On the other hand, presidential enactments could be published dealing with social and economic rights as enumerated in the second part of the third section of the constitution.

Enactments are under the monitor of the Constitutional Court, and that institution is also significant for the checks and balances mechanism. For example, in the possible situation of a conflict between enactments and laws, the Constitutional Court will be the authority for a solution.

Budget Preparation

Finally, the state budget is a way of interaction between the legislative and executive branches in many governmental systems. In presidential systems, this interaction becomes more powerful and important because the strict separation of powers creates a relationship based on mutual checks and balances through the budget.

The proposed Turkish amendment gives the authority to prepare budgets to the president, and this prepared budget needs the approval of parliament, as is the case in many presidential systems in the world today. Thanks to that, the legislator has the right to reject a budget prepared by the president when it deems it necessary. In this situation, the president could prepare a new and temporary budget according to the revaluation rate.

There are major mechanisms for ensuring checks and balances in the new system which are: 1) Concurrent constituency and presidential elections, 2) Concurrent renewal of elections, 3) A time limit for terms of office, 4) Runoff elections for presidents, 5) The power to publish enactments by the president on limited issues and under the supervision of the Constitutional Court to develop and execute policies, 6) And budget preparation as a power of the president but at the same time needing the approval of parliament.

In short, the Turkish Presidential System, which is the center of the proposed amendment, creates differentiations from the current system, not only institutionally but also in terms of the construction of checks and balances. This feature puts limits on the powers of the president and parliament, especially in terms of their relation with each other, and also aims to preserve their spheres of power from intervention by the other.