A new era in Turkish politics began in September 2019. After a series of long-lasting and uninterrupted elections, there is now a nearly four-year election-free period ahead of Turkey. It is important to discuss the main challenges and opportunities in Turkey’s domestic politics during this term, and to analyze rumors of a potential snap election as alleged by opposition parties.

The first and the most important political issue at the top of the agenda is the consolidation of the presidential system in Turkey. Although it was approved in the April 2017 referendum, Turkey officially switched to a presidential system after the June 24 elections in 2018. The evaluation of the first year under the new system shows that there are some emerging problems, especially in its implementation. The most prominent problem being a lack of coordination between policy-makers and practitioners. Furthermore, bureaucratic problems emerged due to ambiguity in the role and function of new institutions under the system. Moreover, the failure of civil servants in adopting to the new system in some cases show the need for further consolidation of presidential system.

Because of this reason, Vice President of Turkey Fuat Oktay, conducted a series of workshops with bureaucrats, politicians, academics, and journalists to discuss the current problems. The outcome of these workshops show that the main problem is rooted in the implementation stage. As a result, some detailed reports are being prepared that aim to consolidate the presidential system and solve current problems.

The second most important emerging issue in domestic politics is uncertainty over the future of established political alliances. Political parties in Turkey have been facing important shifts in their compositions, and the next four years will also determine the future of many political parties. For example, members of the Nation’s Alliance showed different reactions towards recent incidents in Turkish politics such as appointment of trustees and the HDP’s links with the PKK. Additionally, recent changes in the leading cadre of the Iyi Party will be critical for the party’s position within the Nation’s Alliance.

When it comes to the People’s Alliance, the AK Party and the MHP maintain their cooperation without any significant problem. Nevertheless, the emergence of new parties founded by former AK Party members may create uncertainty in this two-block coalition. Since there are few details about the program and leading cadres of these new parties, it is difficult to predict what their position will be in the new political order.

Indeed, all political parties will face the challenge of both broadening the sphere of their alliances and gaining the support of the masses. Since the next parliamentary and presidential elections are planned for June 2023, parties have enough time to determine their strategies to overcome these challenges. Nevertheless, in the coming period, the AK Party and President Erdoğan will also have the responsibility of solving some deep-rooted problems facing Turkey especially in foreign policy and the economy.  Their success in resolving these problems may be effective in gaining more electoral support from the masses in future elections.

A democratic country’s system of government, or more broadly, its political system is a representation of its political experiences, specific dynamics and its institutional lessons. In this context, the search by political elites for a better and more effective system of government has a fundamental contextual background. Turkey’s new system of government, which marks its first anniversary, must be understood by taking these main points into consideration. Disregarding this will lead to commentaries or criticism that are based on an inadequate analysis and leads to the baseless praise of the former parliamentary system that had caused several problems and political crises in the past.

Despite the fact that Turkey’s new system of government, a locally-tailored presidential system, was accepted by a majority of the country in 2017, and that societal acceptance of the system is increasing, some of its current issues are highlighted by certain—rather critical—circles. Of course, it is not a secret that even the AK Party government and its current ally, the MHP, speak about the potential shortcomings of the new system which will need to be addressed.

However, it seems a bit strange that despite this, some dissidents deliberately cast doubt on the entire political system by focusing on rather irrelevant issues that legitimize their own position. These are issues which have little or nothing to do with the system of government itself, but rather with its bureaucratic application and issues of a symbolic nature. These are issues that do not challenge the political system in general and which can be addressed even without legal or constitutional changes. Moreover, the praise of Turkey’s former system does not contribute to the general discussion and undermines the credibility of any criticism regarding the new system.

Criticism regarding the new political system is focused on two main issues: the first relates to some points in the bureaucratic field and the second, on the fact that the president is allowed to be a party member. The first issue is one that most likely will be addressed in the upcoming months and years as it relates to the most important goal of a ruling government, namely, to fulfill its duties and program in order to be elected for a continuing term.

It is the second issue however which is receiving a bit more popular attention. It is not new that there are have been calls criticizing the fact that since May 2017, the constitution allows for the president to be a party member and even a party’s chairperson. However, those criticizing this freedom do not explicitly explain why and how they justify their position, or what they propose as an alternative model. It might be that these people support the following positions: 1) Prohibiting the freedom of the president to be a party member as it was the case in Turkey between 1961-2017, 2) accepting this freedom but calling the president not to make us of it, or 3) accepting this freedom but calling the president to use this freedom just partly, i.e. that the president is a member of a political party but cannot accept the role of party chairperson.

Not only do these critical voices and circles fail to say what constitutes their ideal presidential arrangement, they do not seem to be aware of the experience of other countries who have also made changes to their own political system.

This specific topic goes beyond the borders of a column piece but the question of a president’s right to be a member of a political party should be elaborated in a more considered way. If one looks at French experience of constitutional change towards a semi-presidential system of government, some similarities to the Turkish case can be found.

In France, the president is the head of the government and state. There is no obstacle to be a member of a political party. Although presidents are party members and the most important figure of their political party, they did not prefer to be the party’s official chair. Since 1958, however all presidents have acted as their party’s de facto leader and the phenomenon of so-called presidentialized political parties occurred.

Furthermore, France’s lawmakers did not adapt any parliamentary or presidential system, but they tailored a system of government with specific reference to their own political experiences and dynamics. Eventually a so-called semi-presidential system occurred and over the years several changes within the system continued. For instance, when the current French constitution of 1958 was accepted, it did not intend for the direct election of the president. However, this changed in 1962 when all presidents were elected for seven years by a direct popular vote. Another fundamental change was initiated in the year 2000 by decreasing the president’s term of office from seven to five years with the chance to be re-elected. As one notices, even the original system of government which was already successful and stable underwent fundamental changes subsequent to its establishment in 1958.

Consequently, similar dynamics count for Turkey’s path. In order to establish the new system fully, Turkey needs time and constructive discussions. Furthermore, the views of academics and researchers have to be considered while not forgetting that the potential existence of specific shortcomings does not hinder the successful operation of a system in general. These are the lessons that can be derived from a comparative and considered analysis.

A year has passed since Turkey switched from a parliamentary system to a presidential form of governance. Turkey’s new presidential system had been a hot topic of discussion for politicians, especially last year. Pro and anti-presidential system camps discussed the issue within certain parameters in accordance with their political calculations and ideology. Nevertheless, the lack of knowledge in the discussions shows that there is still a further need of understanding the main characteristics of the Turkish version of the presidential system.

Previous discussions reflected that political parties had been debating the from an ideological point of view. As a result, there were two main compositions as pro and anti-presidential system camps, which prevented an in-depth evaluation of the proposed new system. While anti-presidential system camps conducted an aggressive stigmatizing campaign against the system, pro-presidential system groups failed in discussing the issue out of ongoing political paradigms.

Does the system provide division of power in practice? How does Turkish bureaucracy accord to the new presidential system? There is a need of thinking outside of the box to find clear answers.

Due to this, there is still a failure in understanding the strengths and weaknesses of the system. Does the system provide division of power in practice? Is there an efficient check and balances system in the new structure? How does Turkish bureaucracy accord to the new presidential system? There is a need of thinking outside of the box in order to find clear answers to these questions.

President Erdogan recently stated that if there is a lack in the new government system, it will be corrected in time. Nonetheless, since most political parties approach this issue from a rigid angle, there is no chance to create a joint platform in order to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the system from a more broad perspective.

Moreover, recent political incidents created new ruptures in the ideological stance and discourse of political parties against the new system. For instance, after the March 31 local elections, the CHP’s perception towards the system significantly changed, as it enabled the party to form pre-electoral alliances with other political parties. As a result of this opportunity, the CHP maximized its gains in the election. This was a click moment for the CHP to utilize 50 percent +1 vote prerequisite in Turkey’s presidential system. With this, the CHP managed to form an alliance with the Iyi Party and HDP in Istanbul, Ankara, and Antalya.

Recent political developments in Turkey created an environment, in which political parties now revise their approaches to the presidential system.

Since the CHP realized the advantages that the new system brings for the main opposition party, its direction of criticism towards the system shifted. Kemal Kilicdaroglu- CHP Chairman- recently declared that they were also aware of the shortcomings of Turkey’s old parliamentary system and that they never supported it. Kilicdaroglu also claimed that they were supporting a well-established presidential system, like the one in the U.S.

However, the CHP’s arguments against the presidential system were quite different during the 2017 referendum and its aftermath. For instance, while the CHP had been against switching to a presidential system during the referendum due to finding the system “authoritarian, less democratic, and less representative,” it always underlined that everything was fine with Turkey’s parliamentary democracy, which goes back to 1876. During the June 24 parliamentary and presidential elections, one of CHP’s promises was to switch back to the parliamentary system.

Overall, it should always be kept in mind that most political parties in Turkey may reserve their positions under the new circumstances –even if they have a sharp ideological stance. The latest discussions on Turkey’s presidential system has shown this fact once again. Nonetheless, it is still not easy to guess the future positions of political parties in the upcoming years.

It has been exactly one year since Turkey officially switched to its current presidential system. This is a system that is on the one hand, oriented by global principles and on the other, by Turkey’s own dynamics based on previous and certain political experiences.

Given the current conditions, Turkey’s president is also a member of a political party (currently Erdogan is a member of the AK Party). This was prohibited between 1961-2017. Thus, with the new system, a new kind of politics occurred. In addition, there are current circumstances where the parliamentary majority consists of the AK Party-MHP alliance, and where some metropolitans are led by CHP mayors. This has led to arguments casting doubt on the performance of the new presidential system.

In the last 40 years, many efforts were made in order to reform Turkey’s system of government, which finally became reality in 2017-2018.

Firstly, one has to stress that the Turkish presidential system and the general historical search to solve Turkey’s chronic problem with its political system cannot be limited to the AK Party era or in particular to President Erdogan himself. Certain politicians in the past have gradually tried to circumvent significant problems of Turkey’s previous and lacking parliamentary system by making the offer to switch to either a semi-presidential system or to a system like the one in the U.S. In this sense, in the last 40 years, many efforts were made in order to reform Turkey’s system of government, which finally became reality in 2017-2018.

As I generally addressed in this column, I tend to not believe that Turkey’s opposition circles are really aiming to shift back to a parliamentary system. By this, I don’t mean the political elite, in particular around the CHP, but the secular-oriented Kemalist Turkish voters. During the presidential election in 2018 for instance, the CHP’s candidate, Muharrem Ince, interestingly stated that he does not aim to immediately switch back to the parliamentary system as soon as he is elected. According to Ince’s words, he wanted to work for approximately 2 years under the presidential system and then consider a shift back to the parliamentary system.

Interestingly, even the CHP chair Kemal Kilicdaroglu said that they had never requested to shift back to the old parliamentary system.

But to be honest, with regard to Turkey’s very dynamic political agenda, two years is not an actual persuasive time projection. These words had been interpreted by some voices that even the CHP was considering to accept the presidential system in the long-run. Maybe not in the exact words of Ince, but during his visit to Istanbul’s new mayor Ekrem Imamoglu, CHP chair Kemal Kilicdaroglu said that they [the CHP] had never requested to shift back to the old parliamentary system. This reveals –or most likely will clearly show in the near future- that Turkey’s current presidential system will be established in the future.

Maybe it does not seem that clear at the moment, but the opposition’s categorical rejection of the presidential system –as has been the case in previous years- most likely shifted to a rather cautious tone. This becomes obvious in the criticism by the CHP’s chairperson regarding the previous parliamentary system. By this, one should also take into account a fundamental development. Namely, the AK Party recently lost mayoral elections in Turkey’s main cities, Ankara and Istanbul. This has been interpreted as a result of the “blocs-oriented politics,” which is a result of Turkey’s new presidential system.  

To re-emphasize; the main idea of the new system of government is based on transparent policy-making, which additionally requires pre-electoral alliances in order to achieve the needed majority of 50 percent +1 vote prerequisite. Thus, the need to establish alliances also make it possible for the opposition to gather an alliance against the ruling government.

The debate over Turkey’s system of government have come to an end with the presidential system. But minor changes are possible.

As a consequence, in my opinion, discussions about Turkey’s system of government have come to an end despite several wishful thinking ambitions. I guess that in the long-run some minor changes may be made to reduce new regulations or shortcomings in the implementation of Turkey’s presidential system. However, a potential call or goal to re-shift to a pure parliamentary system does not seem very convincing. As I have already pointed out, the ability of opposition parties to form an alliance and to gather together is related to the fact that the new presidential system is well established, even though this fact is yet to be noticed.

In this context, it might be useful to look at the historical implementation and societal acceptance process of France’s new system of government after 1958/62 by center-right parties. Until that time, French leftists initially opposed the new semi-presidential system. However, in the following years it became clear that even French socialists, who of course differentiate themselves from Turkish leftists or particularly CHP members, got used to the new system and decreased their categorical rejection to the new system.

It is obvious that lawmakers in the U.S. have to compromise in order to pass the appropriations bill (one part of a larger U.S. budget) for the upcoming year. Otherwise, the related legal requirements foresee the continuation of a so-called “government shutdown,” i.e. the stop of funding of government operations and agencies. In such a situation, which has increasingly been occurring since the 1990s, U.S. government operations and agencies are not able to receive funds and most government services are literally frozen. Thus, circa 40% of the government workforce is furloughed without payment.

In the most recent case, President Trump, who had promised to build a wall along the Mexican border during his election campaign in 2016, had been under pressure from his voters. By this, it is no secret that the 2020 elections are also in focus. Trump insisted on his promise to build the wall across the country’s southern border, for which he needs an approximate 5 billion dollars. This needs to be approved by Congress. If this does not occur, President Trump stated that he was “totally prepared for a very long shutdown.” Even before the disagreement, it was not possible to solve the problem between the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the White House. Due to the fact that no deal was reached and tensions increased to the extent that Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer of New York literally shouted “You will not get your wall”), and a new government shutdown occurred.

Nevertheless, in a most likely scenario, American lawmakers and the president in the White House will ultimately find a deal perhaps subsequent to Christmas or even in the new year. However, in the first stage, the shutdown will continue during the Christmas holidays, most probably until 27 December or even longer. In the past, for instance, one of the longest shutdowns occurred during the administration of Democrat President Bill Clinton. This process caused damage worth billions of dollars. A government shutdown also causes disruption to government services and increases the costs of the government due to so-called lost labor.

The longest government shutdown occurred under President Bill Clinton and this cost the government billions of dollars. A government shutdown disrupts government services and increases its costs due to lost labor. 

In this sense, as a comparison and unique development, Turkish lawmakers tried to overcome similar potential problems while establishing Turkey’s new presidential system in 2016. The new system was approved through a referendum on 16 April, 2017, and came into full force on 24 June, 2018. The interesting and striking budget issue in the Turkish context – which is not the same as the U.S. – has been been described by Serdar Gulener and Nebi Mis as followed (p. 24):

“However, it is the second paragraph of the amendment that makes a unique noteworthy contribution to the proposed presidential system. The proposed paragraph reads,

“If the budget bill cannot be carried into effect within due time, a temporary budget bill is passed. If the temporary budget bill cannot be passed, the budget for the previous year is put into effect, after an adjustment is made to its figures based on a revaluation (for inflationary adjustments), until the new budget law is adopted.”

The adoption of the particular aforementioned budget bill procedure offers an effective solution to the issue of probable deadlocks between executive and legislative bodies threatening shutdown of government operations due to absence/delay of budgetary approval. One should keep in mind that discussions to find solutions to such potential deadlocks between the president and the legislature continue in many countries including the U.S.”

Thus, what can we learn from both examples? The answer should be elaborated with comparative sensitivity. But before that, it has to be mentioned that even though it was not addressed in depth on (Turkish) TVs due to Turkey’s currently busy foreign policy agenda, Turkey’s first parliament under the presidential system ratified the country’s 2019 budget in the general assembly on 22 December, while at the same time American government institutions faced a government shutdown.

The Turkish presidential system has a mechanism that activates the budget of the previous year if no agreement is formed in parliament. This avoids government shutdowns that occur, for instance, in the U.S. 

First of all, the American presidency is just one effective example of various models of presidentialism. Different kind of countries have their own domestic dynamics, which are a result of a political, historical, and legal experiences.

Second, Turkey’s new presidential system took all democratic components of a universal presidential system into account while putting an emphasis on realistic scenarios and problem-solving mechanisms. It’s not a big surprise that people rightly point out to the separation of powers importance in the U.S. system, while disregarding the presidents’ dominance over his party, as is the case regarding the current Congress and the Republicans. Thus, one should rather focus on the deal between not only the lawmakers (within Congress) but also the President’s dominance himself during this process – who is eventually and de facto the main actor of the system – whether one wishes it or not; that’s reality.

Third, Turkey’s presidential system has an actual advantage compared to the most favored (and democratically functioning) presidential system in the world. That is to say, it’s not possible that Turkish lawmakers, who have not the majority in Turkey’s unicameral Parliament, put pressure on the government even in a partly blackmailing way in order to cause a government shutdown.

The new system of government has a so-called mechanism that activates the previous years’ budget automatically as was addressed above. Consequently, there won’t be huge losses in a range of billions of Turkish Liras – at the expense of Turkey’s citizens.

Nowadays, Turkey’s political agenda is full with international issues. The new term in Turkey-U.S. relations after the release of Pastor Brunson has become a matter of curiosity in the last couple of days. Moreover, the missing Saudi journalist, Jamal Khashoggi, seems to have shifted the U.S. approach against Saudi Arabia and thus will affect the current dynamics in the Middle East.

Under this ambiguous environment, Turkey’s domestic agenda and the upcoming local elections have become of secondary importance for the public. Nonetheless, political parties have already began to concentrate on their possible strategies in the local elections.

As part of their preparations for local elections, Turkey’s political parties held consultation and evaluation meetings in order to draw a road map. All parties had an idea on the possibilities and limitations in choosing the right candidate. The governing AK Party, for instance, underlined that the upcoming elections would be a turning point for Turkey’s future and it was an obligation to increase both the vote rate and the number of mayors in order to successfully implement the new presidential system. Party officials and members contributed to the ongoing discussions on possible electoral strategies in accordance with this purpose.

One of the major issues that will determine electoral strategy is whether the AK Party and the MHP will form an alliance in order to maximize their benefits. Since the unofficial meetings between the two parties have just started, it is still not possible to clarify this issue. Nevertheless, it should be underlined that both parties pay a significant attention to forming an alliance and are trying to form a consensus on possible ways of achieving this. It seems that the further details of this issue will surface in the following days.

On the other hand, preparation meetings held by the MHP and the Iyi Party revealed the increasing tension between these two parties. Even though both parties have had hot discussions since the June 24 elections, the degree of discussions altered in the last days. The Iyi Party blamed the MHP for betraying nationalist ideals by forming an alliance with the AK Party.

Since the Iyi Party faced serious existential crises after the June 24 elections and was about to collapse, it is now trying to find a new identity and purpose for existence. In accordance with this aim, the party is working to develop a nationalistic stance instead of its catch-all approach, which failed in the previous elections.

The main opposition party, the CHP, has also been discussing possible election strategies. During the meetings held, party officials criticized the party’s current discourse on being so elitist and left-wing oriented. The solution proposed for this problem was to adopt rightist and populist discourse in the upcoming local elections in order to change the image of the party.

At this point, the CHP faces a serious dilemma in deciding whether or not to form an alliance with the Iyi Party and the HDP. Due to the fact that the Nation Alliance failed in the last elections, the party is hesitant to cooperate with these parties. While an intra-party group is working hard to convince the sides to form an alliance with the HDP, some party officials are wary of this and are aware of the risks.

However, the supporting group sees this as the only way of achieving success in the local elections. The more nationalist wing of the party wants to form an alliance with the Iyi Party, especially in Ankara and some provinces in the Mediterranean and Aegean.

Even if consultation and evaluation meetings were a stage for drawing a road map for the local elections, political parties still need more time to finalize their strategies. Due to this, parties are expected to focus more on domestic policy in the upcoming days.