Second event in TEPAV Constitution Experts Seminars held.

---

ANKARA- The second seminar of the TEPAV Constitution Experts Seminar Series was held on July 19, 2010 in Ankara with the theme 'Legislative-Executive Relations, Government Systems and Turkey'.

The panel, where alternative government systems in the world and potential options for Turkey were discussed, hosted Prof. Dr. Robert Elgie, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Levent Gönenç and Prof. Dr. Ersin Kalaycıoğlu.

Prof. Dr. Elgie from Dublin State University assessed the positive and negative characteristics of different government systems, namely parliamentarism, presidentialism and semipresidentialism, at the theory and practice levels and made some inferences for Turkey's case.

Elgie stated that in presidentialism the legislative and executive bodies have competing claims to legitimacy and that the rigidity of the system leads to problems, and underlined that presidential systems are most likely to encourage populist discourses.

Elgie went on to say that in parliamentary systems there is an executive body that has its roots in the legislature, and a head of state typically with symbolic authorities. He added that despite its beneficial characteristics, the system can lead to a divided political structure and instability, and may still produce conflicts of legitimacy.

Stating that semi-presidential systems, where there is both a directly elected president and a government out of the legislature, have their strengths and weaknesses, Elgie underlined that this dual system is prone to executive problems and conflicts of legitimacy. He maintained that the potential conflicts between the president and the prime minister can result in systemic crises.

Underlining the research outcome that in rich democracies the form of government systems does not play a vital importance for the survival of democracy, Robert Elgie argued that in weak democracies parliamentarism is a better choice than presidentialism in terms of the prospects for the survival of the democratic regime. Elgie added that research conducted in 2009 reveals only about 1 in 6,800 presidential democracies will become consolidated regime, compared to 6 in 7 for parliamentary democracies.

Elgie stressed that one must be careful when making recommendations for particular countries, but cautioned that for the case of Turkey, a parliamentary system with a weak presidential office or a semi-presidential system with a weak president would me most preferable. He also stated that though the other examples not necessarily prove catastrophic, the named options are proved to be better options.

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Levent Gönenç from Ankara University explained that the 1982 Constitution, though it stipulated a parliamentary system, established a stronger president than usual. Highlighting that presidential system has been a matter of public debate for several decades in Turkey, Gönenç maintained that the main argument of the proponents is that a strong executive body is required for the socioeconomic development of Turkey. Gönenç added that the constitutional amendment made in 2007, which allowed voters to elect the president directly, was rushed in without taking into account its consistency with other components of the system.

Gönenç explained that the direct election of the president established a quasi-semi-presidential system in Turkey, or one that can be termed a presidential-parliamentary system; and underlined that under such system, any attempt of the president to execute their authorities can give way to problems. He added that direct election requires presidential candidates to make campaign promises and compete with each other. Gönenç argued that once they face the truth that they do not have enough powers to fulfill those promises, presidents might claim for more authority and intervene more frequently in the political arena.

Prof. Dr. Ersin Kalaycıoğlu from Sabancı University argued that although a semi-parliamentary system was foreseen under the 1982 Constitution, an intervention toward a neo-patrimonial presidential system was made with the amendment in 2007. Kalaycıoğlu added that none of these processes took into consideration the notion of a good society.

Kalaycıoğlu stated that the presidential system is considered as the ideal method, but that it precipitated in the USA under an elite settlement, with the premise that the freedom of the individual is maximized and that of the government (the state) is minimized. He argued that in Turkey, state elites argue for presidential system in order to extend their influence, which is, in essence, a quest for a dictatorial regime.

Kalaycıoğlu underlined that the semi-presidential system was originally established in 1919 in the Weimar Republic, collapsing and being replaced by the Nazi regime soon afterwards. Kalaycıoğlu said that a similar system was established in France in 1958 by Charles De Gaulle, who was recalled to power to restore a collapsed regime. He maintained that in presidential systems the two executive powers, i.e. the president and the prime minister, are in a continuous conflict of authority.

Kalaycıoğlu argued that the parliamentary system, in contrast, appears as a result of an evolution through elite convergence. Drawing attention to the difference between a pluralist state and a majoritarian state, Kalaycıoğlu cited ongoing research, which suggests that the primary demand in Turkey is equality with its several components, including equality before the law, equality in the access to opportunity and income equality.

After the speeches, participants voiced their opinions in a lively Q&A and open debate session.

TEPAV Constitution Experts Seminar Series will continue with a third seminar on July 26, 2010. The seminar with the theme 'Coexistence, Citizenship and Constitutions' will host Prof. Dr. Ulrich Preuss from Hertie School of Governance, Prof. Dr. Mithat Sancar from Ankara University and Assoc. Prof. Dr. Mesut Yeğen from Middle East Technical University.