Serkan ERSÖZ - Head of Political Reforms Department
The Constitutional amendments accepted in the Grand National Assembly of Turkey (TBMM) in the May of 2007 and that have come into force with the referendum held in the October of the same year will have important legal and political effects on a short and medium term basis. Below; these probable effects will be dealt with under two headings:
1. A hectic elections traffic awaits Turkey in the coming decade.
2. Constitutional system will become acquainted with a President figure elected by a popular vote.
(1) The Elections Traffic in the Coming Years and Timing of the Elections:
The MP’s term of office is foreseen as decreasing to four years from the current five and the President, previously elected in the parliament every seven years, as being elected every five years by a popular vote. This projection means that there is going to be an increase in the number of elections to be held based on a general ballot.
As can be observed from the list below; the series of elections to start in July of the year 2011 will result in six elections in eight years until the July of 2019. Hence; six important elections to be held at an estimate interval of one and a half years awaits Turkey during the 2010’s. Naturally, such possibilities as early parliamentary elections or the vacancy of the Presidential seat have not been taken into account while this list was being prepared and constitutional periods have been taken as the basis.
As is known; in the case of there being less than one year between them, the parliamentary election and local government election are held simultaneously. Barring this exceptional situation; there is no rule foreseeing the holding of any two elections together. According to the rule of holding the elections simultaneously; the two elections in 2019 need to be held together.
1) July 2011: Parliamentary Election
2) August 2012: Presidential Election
3) March 2014: Local Government Election
4) July 2015: Parliamentary Election
5) August 2017: Presidential Election
6) March-July 2019: Parliamentary and Local Government elections (simultaneously as required by the Constitution)
Subsequent to this list; it will be beneficial to also take a look at the frequency of the elections held every decade following the 1982 Constitution, in order to comprehend how hectic the elections can actually be.
The dates of the elections held during the 1980’s, of course keeping in mind that the first three years were an interim period following the coup d’état of 1980 , were as follows: November 1983 – Parliamentary, March 1984 – Local Government, November 1987 – Parliamentary, March 1989 – Local Government.
Four elections have been held in the 1990’s, a time of an immensely instable political environment: October 1991 – Parliamentary, March 1994 – Local Government, December 1995 – Parliamentary l, March 1999 – Parliamentary and Local Government together.
Again four elections have been held during the 2000’s that started with a coalition government and continued with a strong one party government: November 2002 –Parliamentary, March 2004 – Local Government, July 2007 – Parliamentary, March 2009 – Local Government.
As can be seen, there is no other decade during the timespan following the 1982 Constitution that has witnessed a similar period of hectic elections traffic as the one awaiting Turkey in the 2010’s. Assuredly the most effective element causing this is the two Presidential elections added to the calendar. However it should not be forgotten that the factor increasing the number of elections in the former decades is the early parliamentary elections. So, it is possible for the elections list above to become even further crowded with early elections.
The probable greatest political impact of this hectic traffic is undoubtedly the fact that the political parties will be in a constant state of election vigilance. Together with the candidacy processes, the propaganda period and the discussions on who are the real winners and losers following the announcement of the results; the elections will occupy the country’s agenda for almost four months. Due to the holding of elections with fewer intervals; the country will almost never be able to get out of an election atmosphere. It is also necessary to bear in mind the traditional problems that could be created by the budget referred to as election economy and the spending policies.
The second most important impact is the fact that the parties in power will have to pass tests of legitimacy on a much more frequent basis. It is an accustomed turn of events for the position of the party in power to be questioned should they lose votes in local government elections. Albeit now a new test awaits the parties of not becoming the ruling party that supports a candidate for the Presidency who has not been able to be elected. For example; the government that is going to emerge from the new TBMM to be elected in 2011, will have to weather two important elections before completing three years of office. Could a probable failure in these elections also mean the questioning of the ruling party or parties and hence a new parliamentary elections?
(2) Status of the Presidents to be elected as of 2012:
The Constitutional amendments realised in 2007 will pave the way for a new balance of power within the parliamentarian system: It will be necessary to build a new balance between the President, strengthened as a result of being elected by a popular vote and the Prime Minister, traditionally “strong” in our administration of the parliamentary system. Serious deadlocks may be experienced especially should these two centres of power come from very different divisions of the political spectrum.
This thought is triggered by the foresight that the President will be in a struggle for enhancing his/her “executive role”. As a matter of fact, the President, one of the two pillars of the executive power and now grounded on the popular vote, may want to penetrate into the enforcement part of the executive power. For; though the President’s authorities are extensive in terms of a parliamentary system, these do not include authorities concerning enforcement. It is natural for the President to make an effort to extend his/her sphere of movement towards the enforcement part of the executive power derived from being elected by the popular vote. Moreover, the President has the authority that can be helpful in this endeavour.
In case of the President showing a tendency as foreseen here; it will grow difficult for the Prime Minister and the ruling party to put forth a resistance based on the capacity they currently possess of being elected by the popular vote. In other words; the means that can be utilised by the ruling party to question the President’s endeavour to steer the enforcement will have been decreased. Additionally; having taken office as a result of a two-round system, the President is likely to have received one and a half or perhaps even two times the number of the votes of the party that has received the highest vote in the parliamentary election.
The extent to which our political traditions and style of doing politics will be capable of enduring such two powerful figures coming from different political views presents a serious question mark.
Another issue brought forth due to the President’s election by the popular vote is whether the propaganda to be carried out during the election process is going to have an effect on the President’s impartiality. At first glance; perhaps the participation of the political parties to the election process through the support of a candidate, may also be evaluated as an element that could cast a shadow over this impartiality. However a similar support and hence, the possibility of a President-political party identification, is almost exactly valid for the practice of electing the President in the parliament.
What is new here is the propaganda to be made by the President candidate – perhaps the same as the propaganda methods and tools resorted to by the political party leaders before the general election - directed at the people. Let us ponder for one moment that the impartiality characteristic of the post of Presidency is approached very sensitively and an attempt is made in order to stay away from political discourse throughout the election process. In such circumstances; what will be left for the Presidential candidate to talk about? It is not possible for the Presidential candidate to make enforcement oriented promises. For example the Presidential candidate cannot make any promises related to schools, hospitals or taxes. The President does not have any authority in these fields, s/he can perhaps have wishes. The only material left for propaganda are topics such as the appointment of better Constitutional Court members or that s/he will veto more or less bills in comparison to the other candidates. Since the propaganda period cannot pass with such topics, it is natural to expect that the political approaches of the candidates will compete in the election.
It is frequently stated that the current authorities of the President within our Constitutional system is extraordinarily broad for a parliamentary system. Besides the broadness of these authorities; the most important characteristic of the President is “impartiality”. Possibly it is by virtue of this impartiality that the President has been able to have such a broad spectrum of authority. However now the President is in the position of having to cultivate a political discourse during the process of election by popular vote. While the necessity of reaching a consensus in the Presidential election held just a few years ago was being mentioned, the fact that the next President is going to be elected at the end of a completely political race reflects two extreme approaches related to the Presidential election. In the meanwhile; if the possibility of the current President’s re-election is taken into consideration, then the impartiality of a President already in office during the propaganda period could become even more controversial.
In the meanwhile neither should the democratic dimension of the President’s election by popular vote be neglected. The President, elected directly by the people, should be more accessible in terms of accountability. The current legislative immunity of the parliamentarians that does not comply with the principle of the rule of law could be regarded as reasonable for the President. Even though the possibility of politicisation has been mentioned, it should be accepted that the President is also the head of the state. So it can be accepted for the President to not stand trial or be interrogated at least until the end of his/her tenure. However; for the Prime Minister and the ministers to be responsible for the signatures they have put together with the President and for judicial remedies to be closed in terms of the operations undertaken by the President alone is not suitable from the point of democratic accountability. While the power of being elected by popular vote is given to the President, the responsibility this will bring should likewise be attributed.
In summary, the political or ideological belonging of the President elected by the new procedure could surpass the boundaries we are accustomed to in Turkey until today. This belonging could also strain the constitutional definition of the President. What is important here is the extent and the rapidity by which the political parties and the society become accustomed to this new figure.
"TÜSİAD Article Series"comprised of articles on current debates. The articles are prepared by TÜSİAD researchers. Opinions expressed belong solely to the author and do not represent the views of TÜSİAD.