Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Government Systems and Turkey

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Presidential System in Turkey

  • 327 Accesses

Abstract

As a theoretical framework, this chapter scrutinizes the parliamentary, semi-presidential and presidential systems. It engages with critics to the parliamentary system and illustrates alternative models for Turkey.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Lijphart mentioned the 10 main characteristics of the Westminster model: bestowing the power to a single party and its government, dominance of the cabinet over the political system, two-party system, majority-based election system, uncoordinated and competitive pressure of interest groups on the government, central (monolithic) state, single house parliament or dominance of one house over the other in the government, amenable constitution, lack of constitutional jurisdiction and central bank controlled by the executive (Özsoy 2009: 27).

  2. 2.

    This prevents the use of an important institution such as the motion of censure in an informal way and restricts the right to a motion of censure in various forms, making it difficult to implement. For example, according to the second paragraph of Article 49 in the 1958 French constitution, if the motion of censure is rejected, the deputies who motioned the censure cannot motion another censure during the same session (i.e., in practice a half year). Thus a deputy who knows he or she has the right to a motion of censure only once in a legislative year or period would be hesitant to use that right in bad faith. A similar arrangement is also present in the Greek constitution. According to the 1975 Greek constitution, no new censure can be motioned until six months after the rejection of a motion of censure (A 84/2) (Gözler 2010: 624).

  3. 3.

    To reduce the influence of emotional factors on important votes that could topple governments and to enable the deputies to have time to consider the vote more calmly, the votes are postponed one or two days after the relevant decision (Gözler 2011: 270).

  4. 4.

    The most common way to make it difficult to dismiss the governments is to require an absolute majority of the total number of members, not the ones who are present during the vote in the vote of censure. Thus the votes of the absent members could be considered as a vote of confidence as mentioned in the fourth paragraph of Article 99 of the constitution of 1982 or the second paragraph of the 49th article in the French constitution. The same French constitution, however, does not require a vote of confidence even for the establishment of the government (Gözler 2010: 625).

References

  • Bakırcı, F. (1994). Başkanlık Sistemi Parlamenter Sistem ve Meclis Hükümeti Sistemlerin Karşılaştırılması ve Türkiye Örneği [Comparison of Presidential System Parliamentary System and Parliamentary Government Systems and the Case of Turkey], TBMM Uzmanlık Tezi [The Grand National Assembly of Turkey Expertise Thesis], Ankara.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bayram, S. (2016). Türkiye’de Başkanlık Sistemi Tartışmaları: Algılar, Argümanlar ve Tezler [Discussions on Presidential System in Turkey Perceptions, Arguments and Theses], SETA Report, Ankara.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bilir, F., & Üstün, Ü. S. (2015, May 12). Applicability of the Presidential System in Turkey. Paper presented at 16th International Academic Conference, Amsterdam, pp. 112–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Can, O. (2015, May 9). Parlamenter Sistemin Krizi: İtalya Örneği, [The Crisis of the Parliamentary System: The Case of Italy]. Akşam Newspaper. http://www.aksam.com.tr/yazarlar/parlamenter-sistemin-krizi-italya-ornegi/haber-404224

  • Canas, V. (2004). The Semi Presidential System. Heidelberg Journal of International Law, 64, 95–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Çelebi, F. (2012). Fransa Millet Meclisi Üzerine [On the French National Assembly]. Yasama Dergisi [Journal of Legislative], No. 21, 51–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang, A. C. H. (2015). Vertical Accountability in the Semi-Presidential Regimes: A Micro-Level Prospective. International Journal of Intelligent Technologies and Applied Statistics, 8(1), 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheibub, J. A., & Limongi, F. (2002). Democratic Institutions and Regime Survival: Parliamentary and Presidential Democracies Reconsidered. Annual Review of Political Science, 5, 151–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheibub, J. A., Martin, S., & Rasch, B. E. (2015). Government Selection and Executive Powers: Constitutional Design in Parliamentary Democracies. West European Politics, 38(5), 969–996.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duverger, M. (1975). Seçimle Gelen Krallar [The Republican Monarchy] (Necati Erkurt & Konuk Yayınları, Trans.), İstanbul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duverger, M. (1980). A New Political System Model: Semi-Presidential Government. European Journal of Political Research, 8(2), 165–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duverger, M. (1992). Régime semi-présidentiel. In O. Duhamel & Y. Mény (Eds.), Dictionnaire Constitutionnel (pp. 901–904). Paris: PUF.

    Google Scholar 

  • Efe, H., & Kotan, M. L. (2015). Türkiye’de Hükümet Sistemi Tartışmaları Çerçevesinde Başkanlık Sistemi ve Türkiye’de Uygulanabilirliği [Applicability of the Presidential System in Turkey in the Framework of Government System Discussions]. Kafkas Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi [The Journal of KAU IIBF], 6(9), 67–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elgie, R. (2007). Varieties of Semi-Presidentialism and Their Impact on Nascent Democracies. Taiwan Journal of Democracy, 3(2), 53–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elgie, R. (2011). Semi-Presidentialism: An Increasingly Common Constitutional Choice. In R. Elgie, S. Moestrup, & Y.-S. Wu (Eds.), Semi-Presidentialism and Democracy (pp. 1–20). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Elgie, R., & McMenamin, I. (2011). Explaining the Onset of Cohabitation Under Semi-Presidentialism. Political Studies, 59(3), 616–635.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erdem, K. (2014). Yarı Başkanlık Sistemi: Teori, Pratik ve Tartışmalar [Semi-Presidency System: Theory, Practice and Discussions]. In H. Y. Kaya (Ed.), Karşılaştırmalı Hükümet Sistemleri Yarı-Başkanlık Sistemi: Fransa, Polonya ve Rusya Örnekleri [Comparative Government Systems Semi-Presidential System: The Cases of France, Poland and Russia] (pp. 1–26). Ankara: TBMM Araştırma Merkezi Yayınları.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erdoğan, M. (1993). Anayasacılık Parlamentarizm Silahlı Kuvvetler [Constitutionalism Parliamentarism Armed Forces]. Ankara: Siyasal Kitabevi.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erdoğan, M. (1996). Başkanlık Sistemini Doğru Tartışmak [Discussing the Presidential System Correctly]. Liberal Düşünce [Liberal Thought], No. 2, 4–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fernandes, J. M., & Magalhaes, P. C. (2016). Government Survival in Semi-presidential Regimes. European Journal of Political Research, 55(1), 61–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ganghof, S. (2015). Is the ‘Constitution of Equality’ Parliamentary, Presidential or Hybrid? Political Studies, 63(4), 814–829.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gözler, K. (2000). Türkiye’de Hükümetlere Nasıl İstikrar ve Etkinlik Kazandırılabilir? (Başkanlık Sistemi ve Rasyonelleştirilmiş Parlâmentarizm Üzerine bir Deneme) [How Can Stability and Activity Be Gained in Government in Turkey? (Presidential System and an Experiment on Rationalized Parliament)]. Türkiye Günlüğü [Turkey Diary], No. 62, 25–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gözler, K. (2010). Anayasa Hukukunun Genel Teorisi [General Theory of Constitutional Law]. Cilt 1 [Vol. 1]. Bursa: Ekin Yayınevi.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gözler, K. (2011). Anayasa Hukukunun Genel Teorisi [General Theory of Constitutional Law] (Vol. II). Bursa: Ekin Kitabevi.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gürbüz, Ö. (2000). Başkanlık ve Yarı Başkanlık Sistemleri: Başkanlık Sistemi Çözüm mü? [Presidential and Semi-Presidential Systems: Is the Presidential System the Solution?]. In Türkiye’de Siyasi Yapılanma ve Temel Siyasi Sorunlar Sempozyumu [Symposium on Political Structuring and Basic Political Issues in Turkey], TBB-TESAV, Ankara.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hakyemez, Y. Ş. (2012). Hükümet Sistemi Arayışları ve Yeni Anayasa [The Search for the Government System and the New Constitution]. In E. Göztepe & A. Çelebi (Eds.), Demokratik Anayasa [Democratic Constitution] (pp. 270–297). İstanbul: Metis Yayıncılık.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hekimoğlu, M. M. (2009). Anayasa Hukukunda Karşılaştırmalı Demokratik Hükümet Sistemleri ve Türkiye [Comparative Democratic Government Systems in Constitutional Law and Turkey]. Ankara: Detay Yayınevi.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heper, M., & Çınar, M. (1996). Parliamentary Government with a Strong President: The Post-1989 Turkish Experience. Political Science Quarterly, 111(3), 483–503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hewlett, N. (2012). Voting in the Shadow of the Crisis. The French Presidential and Parliamentary Elections of 2012. Modern & Contemporary France, 20(4), 403–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • JDP. (2015). November 1, 2015 General Elections Manifest. Retrieved from http://aa.com.tr/uploads/ TempUserFiles/ak_parti_beyanname.pdf

  • Kahraman, M. (2012a). Hükümet Sistemi Tartışmaları Bağlamında Başkanlık ya da Yarı-Başkanlık Sistemlerinin Türkiye’de Uygulanabilirliği [Political Regime Debates and the Possibility of Implementation of Presidential and Semi-Presidential Regimes in Turkey]. Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi [Mustafa Kemal University Journal of Social Sciences Institute], 9(18), 431–457.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahraman, M. (2012b). Cumhurbaşkanının Halk Tarafından Seçilmesi ve Cumhurbaşkanı Seçim Kanunu [The Election of the President Directly by the Public and the Law on Presidential Elections]. Selçuk Üniversitesi İİBF Sosyal ve Ekonomik Araştırmalar Dergisi [Selçuk University Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences Social and Economic Research Journal], No. 23, 263–287.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalaycıoğlu, E. (2005). Başkanlık Rejimi: Türkiye’nin Diktatörlük Tehdidiyle Sınavı [Presidency Regime: Turkey’s Dictatorship Exam]. In Başkanlık Sistemi [Presidential System], prepared by Teoman Ergül, Türkiye Barolar Birliği Yayınları, Ankara, pp. 13–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keser, H. (2011). Türkiye ve Başkanlık Sistemi [Turkey and the Presidential System]. İnönü Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi [İnönü University Law Review], 2(1), 23–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kılınç, Z. A. (2015). Başkanlık Sistemi ve Güçlü Tek Parti Hükümeti [Presidential System and Strong One-Party Government]. International Journal of Political Studies, 1(2), 12–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Köker, L. (2013). Yeni Anayasa Sürecini İzleme Raporu: Yeni Anayasada Temel İlkeler ve Hükümet Sistemi Tercihi [New Constitution Process Monitoring Report: Fundamental Principles and Government System Choice in the New Constitution] (pp. 1–24). İstanbul: TESEV.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuzu, B. (1996). Türkiye için Başkanlık Sistemi [Presidential System for Turkey]. Liberal Düşünce [Liberal Thought], 1(2), 13–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuzu, B. (1997). Türkiye için Başkanlık Sistemi [Presidential System for Turkey]. İstanbul: Fakülteler Matbaası.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuzu, B. (2011). Her Yönü ile Başkanlık Sistemi [Presidential System in all Aspects]. İstanbul: Babıali Kültür Yayınları.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lijphart, A. (1999). Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries. New Haven & London: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linz, J. J. (1990a). The Perils of Presidentialism. Journal of Democracy, 1(1), 51–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linz, J. J. (1990b). The Virtues of Parliamentarism. Journal of Democracy, 1(4), 84–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mainwaring, S. (1990). Presidentialism, Multiparty Systems, and Democracy: The Difficult Equation, The Kellogg Institute for International Studies, Working Paper, No. 144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Özbudun, E. (2005). Başkanlık Sistemi Tartışmaları [Presidential System Discussions]. In Başkanlık Sistemi [Presidential System], prepared by Teoman Ergül, Türkiye Barolar Birliği Yayınları, Ankara, pp. 104–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Özbudun, E. (2012). “Presidentialism vs. Parliamentarism in Turkey” Sabancı University İstanbul Policy Center. Policy Brief, 1, 1–4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Özbudun, E. (2013). Hükümet Sistemleri-Hükümet Sistemi Tartışmaları [Government Systems-Government System Discussions]. Yeni Türkiye Dergisi [Journal of New Turkey], No. 51, 205–213.

    Google Scholar 

  • Özcan, H. (2013). Kurucu Güvensizlik oyu Başkanlık Sistemine Alternatif Olabilir mi? [Can a Constitutive Vote of Nonconfidence Be an Alternative to the Presidential System?]. Yeni Türkiye Dergisi [Journal of New Turkey], No. 51, 492–497.

    Google Scholar 

  • Özsoy, Ş. (2009). Başkanlı Parlamenter Sistem [Parliamentary System with President]. İstanbul: XII Levha Yayınları.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parsak, M. (2012). Parlamenter/Başkanlık/Yarı Başkanlık Hükümet Sistemlerine Genel Bir Bakış ve Türkiye Cumhuriyeti’nin Hükümet Sistemi [General Overview of the Parliamentary/Presidential/Semi-Presidential Systems and Government System of the Republic of Turkey] (pp. 1–24). Ankara: Türk Akademisi Siyasi Sosyal Stratejik Araştirmalar Vakfı.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polater, Y. Z. (2014). Modern Hükümet Sistemlerinden Yarı-Başkanlık Sistemi ve Türkiye’de Uygulanabilirliği [One of the Modern Governmental Systems; the Semi-Presidential System and Its Applicability in Turkey]. Uyuşmazlık Mahkemesi Dergisi [Journal of the Court of Jurisdictional Dispute], No. 4, 133–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riggs, F. W. (1997). Presidentialism versus Parliamentarism: Implications for Representativeness and Legitimacy. International Political Science Review, 18(3), 253–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarıkaya, M. (2016, January 3). Kurucu Referandum [Founder Referendum]. Habertürk Newspaper. http://www.haberturk.com/yazarlar/muharrem-sarikaya/1175557-kurucu-referandum

  • Sartori, G. (1997). Karşılaştırmalı Anayasa Mühendisliği [Comparative Constitutional Engineering], (Ergun Özbudun, Trans.), Yetkin Yayınları, Ankara.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sevinç, M. (2002). Güncel Gelişmelerin Işığında 1982 Anayasasına Göre Cumhurbaşkanı [In the Light of Current Developments, the President According to the 1982 Constitution]. Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi [Ankara University The Journal of the Faculty of Political Science], 57(2), 109–137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teziç, E. (2007). Anayasa Hukuku [Constitutional Law]. İstanbul: Beta Yayınevi.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teziç, E. (2009). Anayasa Hukuku [Constitutional Law] (13th ed.). İstanbul: Beta Basın Yayın.

    Google Scholar 

  • Topukçu, A. (2015). The Processes and the Principles of Constitutional Design in Turkey- Historical and Legal Perspective. Central and Eastern European Legal Studies, 1, 57–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tunç, H., & Yavuz, B. (2009). Avantaj ve Dezavantajlarıyla Başkanlık Sistemi [Presidential System with Advantages and Disadvantages]. Türkiye Barolar Birliği Dergisi [Journal of Turkish Bar Association], No. 81, 1–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tunçaşık, H. (2015). Parlamenter Sistem: Teori, Pratik ve Tartışmalar [Parliamentary System: Theory, Practice and Discussions]. In H. Y. Kaya (Ed.), Karşılaştırmalı Hükümet Sistemleri Yarı-Başkanlık Sistemi: Fransa, Polonya ve Rusya Örnekleri [Comparative Government Systems Semi-Presidential System: The Cases of France, Poland and Russia] (pp. 1–35). Ankara: TBMM Araştırma Merkezi Yayınları.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turhan, M. (1989). Hükümet Sistemleri ve 1982 Anayasası [Government Systems and the 1982 Constitution]. Diyarbakır: Dicle Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Yayınları.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turhan, M. (1992). Parliamentarism or Presidentialism? ‘Constitutional Choices for Turkey’. Ankara Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Dergisi [Ankara University the Journal of the Faculty of Political Science], 47(1–2), 153–168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Türk, R. (2011). Feasibility of Presidential System in Turkey. Turkish Journal of Politics, 2(1), 33–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uran, P. (2010). Turkey’s Hasty Constitutional Amendment Devoid of Rational Basis: From a Political Crisis to a Governmental System Change. Journal of Politics Law, 3(1), 2–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Üskül, M. Z. (2013). Başkanlık Sistemi mi? Neden? [Presidential System? Why?]. Yeni Türkiye Dergisi [Journal of New Turkey], No. 51, 530–537.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yazıcı, S. (2005). Başkanlık Sistemleri: Türkiye için Bir Değerlendirme [Presidential Systems: An Assessment for Turkey]. In Başkanlık Sistemi [Presidential System], prepared by Teoman Ergül, Türkiye Barolar Birliği Yayınları, Ankara, pp. 125–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yüksel, C. (2013). Türkiye’nin Gelecek Siyasi Sistem Tercihi: Rasyonelleştirilmiş Parlamentarizm, Yarı-Başkanlık ve Başkanlık Sistemleri [Turkey’s Future Political System Preference: Rationalized Parliamentarism, Semi-Presidency and Presidency Systems]. Yasama Dergisi [Journal of Legislation], No. 25, 38–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zarplı, Ç. (2015). Türkiye’de Başkanlık Sistemi Tartışmasının Kavramsal-Kurumsal Analizi: Kuvvetler Ayrılığı Prensibinin Kökenleri [Conceptual-Institutional Analysis of the Presidential System Debates in Turkey: The Origins of the Principle of Separation of Powers]. Siyaset, Ekonomi ve Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi [Research Journal of Politics, Economics and Management], 3(2), 165–183.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Ahi Evran University, Kırşehir, Turkey

    Battal Yilmaz

Authors
  1. Battal Yilmaz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Yilmaz, B. (2018). Government Systems and Turkey. In: The Presidential System in Turkey. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71267-3_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation