Chief Presidential Advisor Mehmet Uçum reacts to 'fabricated title' for Davutoğlu: They are not directly elected in a parliamentary system

Uçum, reminding that in a parliamentary system, prime ministers and ministers are not directly elected by the public, and that by convention, the leader of the party that wins the most seats in Parliament is appointed prime minister if they are also a member of parliament, stated, "If prime ministers in a parliamentary system are considered elected because they are members of parliament, then the 'Last Elected Prime Minister' of Turkey would be Mr. Binali Yıldırım." Uçum added, "It is understood that a fabricated title has been created, if the term is appropriate, which is based on no logical consistency, has no basis in legitimacy, and is clearly contrary to the constitutional provisions of that period." 

The Ankara Chief Public Prosecutor's Office has launched an investigation into Ahmet Davutoğlu, the leader of the dissolved Future Party and former Prime Minister, on charges of "insulting the President" due to statements he made during a program he attended. In a statement providing information about the investigation, Davutoğlu's lawyer, Hasan Seymen, used the phrase 'the last elected Prime Minister of the Republic of Turkey' for his client. 

Reacting to the phrase "'the last elected Prime Minister of the Republic of Turkey'" used by Seymen, Uçum said in a statement on social media, "If prime ministers in a parliamentary system are considered elected because they are members of parliament, then the 'Last Elected Prime Minister' of Turkey would be Mr. Binali Yıldırım." Uçum made the following statements in his post on his social media account: 

"There are not many political circles left in Turkey that sincerely advocate for a return to the parliamentary system. It seems to be largely accepted that a return to the past is not a realistic political program. In any case, an approach that opposes the will of the people and targets one of the people's two powerful voting rights, either to neutralize or eliminate it, is both a reactionary policy and will never receive support from the people.

Aside from this, one of the arguments of those who advocated for a return to the past in the past was the claim that ministers were elected in the parliamentary system. Of course, if ministers were elected, the prime minister should have been considered elected a fortiori (!). According to them, it was as if the public directly elected the prime minister and ministers in the parliamentary system. This claim, which is contrary to the Constitution, was likely related to the provision that the person to be appointed prime minister must be a member of parliament and that ministers were also generally appointed from among members of parliament due to political convention. Of course, it was a general practice to appoint the leader of the party that won the most seats in Parliament as prime minister, if they were also a member of parliament, in accordance with democratic convention. However, in our political history, we have also witnessed appointments by the President, who had a tutelary position constitutionally, that were contrary to democratic conventions. There was even an example where a member of parliament who acted alone, without a party group to accompany them, was appointed Prime Minister to block the democratic will. Of course, there is much to be said about both our former parliamentary system and the parliamentary system in general, especially regarding the chronic government crises, but that is not our subject for now.

According to the claim most recently voiced by the lawyer, Mr. Ahmet Davutoğlu holds the title of 'Last Elected Prime Minister of the Republic of Turkey.'

Let us state that the person who last served as Prime Minister in the Republic of Turkey is Mr. Binali Yıldırım. If prime ministers in a parliamentary system are considered elected because they are members of parliament, then the 'Last Elected Prime Minister' of Turkey would be Mr. Binali Yıldırım. If this 'being considered elected' is specific to the leaders of the party that receives the most votes in general elections who are also members of parliament themselves, then a very strange situation arises: those who become prime minister immediately after general elections would be considered elected, while those who become prime minister in the interim would not.

It is possible to apply the same logic to ministers. Those who become ministers immediately after general elections would be considered elected, while those who become ministers in the interim would not. The absurdity even extends to considering those who are members of parliament and become ministers immediately after general elections as elected, not considering those who become ministers later as elected, and never considering ministers who are not members of parliament as elected at all. This perspective is extremely problematic and absurd.

The truth of the matter is that in our parliamentary system, neither was the prime minister an 'elected prime minister,' nor were the ministers 'elected ministers.' The only ones directly elected by the public were the members of parliament who were members of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey. The public did not elect the prime minister or ministers. Winning general elections did not constitutionally result in being elected prime minister.

According to the repealed Article 109 of the 1982 Constitution, the Prime Minister was appointed by the President from among the members of parliament. Ministers were selected by the Prime Minister either from among members of parliament or from among those who possessed the qualifications to be elected as a member of parliament—that is, from outside the Assembly—and were appointed by the President.

Therefore, it is understood that a fabricated title has been created, if the term is appropriate, which is based on no logical consistency, has no basis in legitimacy, and is clearly contrary to the constitutional provisions of that period."

News Source: 12punto