Presidential elections held as per the current constitutional framework will bring structural instability.

The way we debate the issues here in Turkey is weird. We raise all issues upside down. We proceed backwards to forward. In the end, the debate fails to advance on a normal course. We keep talking, but we make no headway. Take the presidential system debates, for instance. I believe that a presidential system issue exists with which Turkey has to deal independent of the particular people who seek to become president. However, we pretend that it does not. How can we make the debate about the presidential system stand on its own feet? I think herein lies today's billion-dollar question about stability. This question also is associated closely with the maintenance political and economic stability.

Levent Gönenç, Ph.D., from TEPAV Law Studies calls the system defined in the current constitution as a "presidential parliamentary system." There is something strange. It is neither presidential nor parliamentary. Neither one or the other; it is a combination of both. As the current constitution stipulates, the president shall be elected directly by the public. If not amended, we will for the first time directly elect a president in 2012. The "proper" question of today therefore is the following: can a president who won the elections with 51% of the votes and a prime minister who assumes the office with 38% of the votes coexist? I think they cannot. Every day a new problem arises. Stability vanishes. We see nothing but news about conflict and reconciliation. This constitution as is generates instability rather than stability.

So, what can we do? There are three options. The first is to abjure the public presidential election system and restore the former practice according to which the president was elected by the Grand National Assembly of Turkey (TGNA), or the parliament. Of course, that is if we can convince the statesmen who "excellently know and foresee everything." Second, the public directly elects the president, but the role of the president through constitutional amendments is reduced to that of a wall flower. So the public elects a president who has have no real weight within the system. Currently, however, even the decree of the appointment of a sergeant requires the approval of the president. This should be a joke, but unfortunately it is not. If the system is not amended, the elected president can demand a budget for approval and become a tough negotiator. The system is suited perfectly to this. Third, the president is elected by the public and while the authority of the president is expanded, those of the prime minister are reduced with a constitutional amendment. The public administration system is modified thoroughly and local administrations are strengthened. This third option might translate into a preference for a presidential system. If the objective is to secure administrative stability, we have to move the presidential system debates to the top of the agenda of constitutional studies. This is what I see. It is not possible to preserve stability unless the presidential system is debated. This is the reality, whether we like it or not. You cannot fight reality.

We had better identify the source of the ongoing distortion correctly. It was us altogether who created the distortion five years ago while we were jostling during the "magical role of the 367 rule in the presidential election process" and the "e-memorandum scandal." As the saying goes, the mistakes of yesterday are paid today.  Short-sighted steps taken in line with the milieu in the past have driven us to the current point. I am sure some of the responsible people were thinking "My God, we made an excellent move," but their steps are strangling us today. Such is life.

The first thing to do now is to realize that Turkey must face the presidential system debate immediately. This issue will occupy the agenda, in one way or another. We will discuss this either before the presidential election or while managing the crises that will emerge afterward. The general elections of 2011 already will bring economic challenges. There is no sense in adding the basis for structural political instability on top of it.

Presidential elections held as per the current constitutional framework will bring structural instability. To whom this might concern.

This commentary was published in Radikal daily on 19.04.2011