The presidential system "by the people and for the people"

Setting aside the criticisms that the constitutional amendment on the agenda will create an uncontrolled power under the presidency, the extent to which it concerns the person of the esteemed President is another matter. Both points undoubtedly deserve to be addressed separately.

First of all, within an atmosphere of good-faith political debate all these criticisms or concerns are justified, and we are trying to speak on that assumption. On a ground where ill will is decisive, the parties have nothing to say to each other anyway.

Thank God, the field of politics in Turkey is widening more and more with each passing day.

This means that the likelihood of debate being effective in shaping people's views has increased even further.

People approach issues by evaluating, in a more reasonable way, the circumstances that are truly for and against them.

Although its low-grade examples occasionally muddy the waters, we can say that there is a development in this sense in Turkey and that the ground of political debate is gradually strengthening.

Although taboos express, for some people, the desire to remain taboo and to close off fields of debate, looking back it will be seen that many chronic problems said to be undiscussable, even unthinkable to propose, have in fact been solved.

The headscarf ban, to which Turkey's very existence was at one time almost dedicated, has today become an absurd subject that people recall with a bitter laugh.

The issues that once created the Kurdish problem are today, in a word, matters that have been "overcome" for Turkey. In terms of the political level Turkey has reached today, the Kurdish issue has come down to the level of nothing more than

"the psychological problem of those left in a void because the issues have been solved."

Otherwise, for society and for the state alike, the Kurdish issue is now an issue that has been overcome and solved.

The subject of "Turkey's system of government" was also among the issues that could not be touched, and this subject has entered the path of resolution in Turkey with a minimum of consensus having been achieved.

The only connection of this system today with the person of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is that the achievement of having brought it onto the country's agenda as a subject for resolution belongs to him.

Otherwise, the claim that this system will give Erdoğan more power, that it will establish a unity of powers in his person, is nothing but a babble of words that amounts to the CHP's Erdoğanphobia.

The truth of the matter is, if Erdoğan had wanted more power, he would have needed nothing other than to want the continuation of the existing situation

. Because, owing to the current parliamentary regime and the exceptional relationship he already has with his party within this regime,

there is no further power that Erdoğan will secure through the presidential system.

To those who invite us to consider what the result might be if someone other than Erdoğan were in the presidential system, let us for our part invite them to recall

Kenan Evren, Süleyman Demirel and Ahmet Necdet Sezer,

who served as president in the past within this parliamentary system. The presidency of all three of them had become possible within the parliamentary regime.

We all lived and saw together what they cost the country

. Could all three of them (perhaps with the exception of the first, who came by a coup) have come to that office, which they occupied for seven years each, by going through a natural election campaign process and taking the absolute majority of the people's votes?

In response to those who say that the presidential system will give the President an uncontrolled power, when we take a look at the new provisions we see that there are, if anything, more limits drawn on the President. The President can issue decrees on administrative matters, but what he cannot do is mentioned more, for example:

He cannot issue decrees on fundamental rights, personal rights and duties, and political rights and duties.

*

He cannot issue decrees on matters that the Constitution stipulates are to be regulated by law.

*

He cannot issue decrees on matters explicitly regulated by law.

*

When decrees and laws conflict, the provisions of the law are applied.

* If Parliament enacts a law on the same subject, the decree becomes void.

*

Decrees are subject to the oversight of Parliament and the Constitutional Court.

*

Institutions with local legal personality cannot be established by Presidential Decrees.

*

He is given the power to dissolve Parliament, but when he dissolves Parliament he also ends his own term of office. The same applies to Parliament. When one side dissolves the other, they go to election together, that is, to the nation, that is, to the real owner of power.

*

The President's "irresponsibility" is removed, that is, he ceases to be "authorized but irresponsible."

*

Oversight and criminal liability come to the President. According to the current constitution, the President can be tried only for high treason, by a three-quarters vote of Parliament. Now an investigation can be opened against him on the allegation of having committed any crime.

* A President against whom an investigation has been opened cannot take an early election decision.

*

In the new system the President is responsible to Parliament and to the nation. In today's system, acts the President performs alone are not subject to judicial review. In the new system all of the President's acts and transactions are opened to judicial review.

It should be noted that all these statements and discourses are statements that draw limits on the President's powers and in fact restrict him.

In their time both Özal and Demirel brought the presidential system onto the agenda and sought support, but they could not obtain this support from the people. The reason was not that the people did not believe in the necessity and benefit of this system at that time, but that those who brought it up could not decide whether they wanted it for themselves or for this nation.

Today Erdoğan receives great support and courage from the people to bring this subject onto the agenda.

Because the people believe and trust that Erdoğan brings this subject up not for his own person but for the benefit and future of the nation, and they open for him the path necessary to make this change.

Because they know that, in place of a power run by some people for the people in spite of the people, the way is being opened for a power according to the people and for the people, that is, their own power.