I am impatiently waiting to see how the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) will explain its shift from a Turkish style presidential system to the American style presidential system.
Did Prime Minister Binali Yıldırım say this to put pressure on the Republican People's Party (CHP) for saying, “We will show support if it is an American style presidency system?”
I believe this will not work, as it is a wrong move.
As if CHP voters would say “Since you said something like this, keep your word!”
The AK Party needs the support of its own voters rather than that of the opposition.
The AK Party has to first explain to its supporters that a constitutional change is compulsory for Turkey, not that President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan needs to be president.
Criticizing the useless politics of the opposition parties will bring no benefit to the presidential system.
After all, the political parties did not found the parliamentarian system, rather the parliamentary system created the political parties.
The intolerance and animosity toward the bigger parties is what creates a barrier before Turkey's growth.
The dilemmas that happen from time to time are not derived from the parties. They arise because these parties are weakened and broken apart.
The Democrat Party (DP) was stopped not because it could not manage Turkey but because it did not give the CHP a chance to be elected.
The Motherland Party (ANAP) fell apart, or was perhaps forced to fall apart, because it gave in to the system and turned its chairman into an ineffective president.
Likewise, because Bülent Ecevit's CHP grew extremely big, it was exposed to a governmental operation.
Criticizing the CHP, Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) and the Peoples' Democratic Party (HDP) on the grounds of the presidential system will not benefit the process at all.
These parties are trying to act cunningly and create a psychological breakup just like the June 7 period by putting Erdoğan into the picture instead of talking about the real issue.
The political parties are not the AK Party's point of contact during the new constitution phase.
This will not work if the political institution does not lay claim to a “party fact” and does not believe a democratic lifestyle will be protected by the big parties.
I would like to sincerely say that this is not an issue of Erdoğan, therefore we need to move on to a new level and question the system.
HDP Co-Chair Selahattin Demirtaş's biggest aim might be to prevent Erdoğan from becoming the president of the presidential system, but the issue is not as simple as this.
Even the economic crisis in Venezuela will be presented as a base for nonsense discussions.
It is going to be said, “What happened to the claim that crises do not happen in the presidential system. Are all these the result of a parliamentarian system?”
Yes, this is what I am talking about...
Did a crisis erupt in Venezuela because Chavez died? What would have changed if Chavez were still living?
Nothing would have changed, this time the problem would be how the country was managed.
A presidential system that is not administered properly will show many failures, you have a point but it being brought to a standstill despite being run properly, is the greatest weakness of the parliamentary system.
If the AK Party and CHP voters are going to give the new constitution an “affirmative vote” they will do so if they believe the system will really change.
It is impossible for them to settle on the name to be the “president.”
This is the point the AK Party needs to work on.
For the sake of argument, let's say that the presidential system went through, will this then be the system of a person, family or a circle?
In this case whatever the system is, you will not be able to lead the country effectively.
But the parliamentary system in Turkey can be considered as a security within the discussions of the East-West dimension and it serves as an insurance on behalf of the sovereignty of the Western climate.
I wouldn't have wanted to approach the issue within this respect, but the opposition has to say that it feeds its negative attitude toward the system with these reasons.
The issue is not about giving examples from Europe for a parliamentary system option.
Europe has to protect its civilization. The main presidential system was established in the US, and the real issue is the East does not have a leader.
European democracy is only standing due to US power and presidential system.
If you want to love like Sultan Süleyman, you would need to have a father like Yavuz Sultan Selim.
There is no need to create a problem.
Would your attitude have changed if the AK Party's candidate was someone other than Erdoğan?
I don't think so...
Let's ask the question the other way around.
If the AK Party's candidate was not Erdoğan, would AK Party supporters still have been so keen on the presidential system?
I don't think so...
A system cannot change out of obstinacy, you are right, but a system that does not change because of your obstinacy will change in the end. Keep that in mind...