Notable message from the Palace regarding the Presidential Government System: Arınç had said 'I find it wrong'

Former Speaker of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey (TBMM) Bülent Arınç had criticized the partisan presidential system in a statement to Mocca Magazine, saying, "I find it wrong." Arınç had stated, "I find the partisan presidential system wrong. This is a 'la turca' (improvised/non-standard) system. We should transition to either a full presidential system or a semi-presidential system."

While this remark by Arınç continues to be debated, Chief Advisor to the President and Deputy Chair of the Presidential Legal Policies Board Mehmet Uçum made statements regarding the Presidential Government System in a message he published under the title 'A weekend note'. Uçum said, "Actually, there is no government model called the partisan presidential system."

Uçum stated that there is no government model called the partisan presidential system, adding, "Therefore, it cannot be claimed that something that does not exist is wrong."

Uçum also stated that there is no obligation for the President to be a party member.

Stating that there is also no obligation for the President to be a party chairman, Uçum said, "That is why the relationship between the president and the party is regulated as an option. Any legal regulation that would hinder or prohibit this option would be anti-democratic.

In summary, the president being a party member or the chairman of a party is a requirement of the opportunity offered by the system. It is a result of the freedom to engage in politics and the right to political participation, not a systemic necessity," he said.

Uçum also said the following regarding 'new constitution efforts':

"One cannot transition from a presidential system to a presidential system; it would be meaningful if the following were said: let us fix the flaws of our presidential system, complete its shortcomings, and develop the system. This would always be a reasonable and legitimate approach that can be discussed, and it should be done. It can easily be foreseen that these will come to the agenda in the new constitution efforts."

The expressions Uçum used on his X account are as follows:

"Statements are being made by rote without any thought that the 'partisan presidential system' is wrong. Actually, there is no government model called the partisan presidential system. Therefore, it cannot be claimed that something that does not exist is wrong.

There is a presidential model whose name is the Presidential Government System. The issue being objected to is the possibility of the president being a party member. Those who object without being aware of these details are absurdly advocating for a transition from the Presidential Government System, which is already a presidential system, to a full presidential system(!)

One cannot transition from a presidential system to a presidential system; it would be meaningful if the following were said: let us fix the flaws of our presidential system, complete its shortcomings, and develop the system. This would always be a reasonable and legitimate approach that can be discussed, and it should be done. It can easily be foreseen that these will come to the agenda in the new constitution efforts.

Or, as another rote argument, they say let us transition to a semi-presidential system, which France is looking for ways to get rid of and which produces many problems where it is applied.

"THESE OPINION HOLDERS PROBABLY THINK IT IS PROHIBITED IN OTHER COUNTRIES"

These opinion holders probably think that the president's relationship with parties is prohibited in presidential or semi-presidential systems in other countries, or they believe it should be so. Otherwise, why would they find the possibility of the president being a party member wrong?

Everyone concerned knows that one of the foundations of a democratic order is the right to engage in democratic politics. The primary tool of collective politics is parties.

Opposing the president, who aspires to the executive branch and assumes the government duty when elected, being a party member, and advocating for banning the right to democratic politics for a president elected with more than fifty percent of the vote is, to put it mildly, not understanding democracy and not knowing the presidential system at all.

In the presidential system, the president being a party member is not a necessity but an option. This situation is not unique to Turkey; it is like this in all presidential systems.

The level at which this option will be used is determined by social and political dynamics, the internal processes of the relevant party, and the preferences the president must take into account. In world examples, there are very diverse levels and forms of relationships between presidents and the parties they are affiliated with.

The possibility of the president being a party member is primarily a requirement of the president having the right to engage in democratic politics within the scope of their fundamental rights as a citizen.

In terms of democratic order, one of the natural requirements of parties' claim to be the government in presidential systems is the possibility of the president being a party member.

This debate is not solely a matter of the legal field. On the contrary, it is predominantly related to the functions of the social and political structure within the system. The possibility of a presidential candidate or the president being a party member is a result of parties aspiring to government and the necessity of being related to the candidate they support, and to the president if elected.

Of course, this necessity of being related does not necessarily mean that the presidential candidate or the president must be a party member or an executive/chairman. That is why the relationship between the president and the party is regulated as an option.

Any legal regulation that would hinder or prohibit this option would be anti-democratic.

In summary, the president being a party member or the chairman of a party is a requirement of the opportunity offered by the system. It is a result of the freedom to engage in politics and the right to political participation, not a systemic necessity.

The presidential candidate or president who wishes to do so uses this possibility of being a party member at the highest level if social and political conditions allow, and those who wish to do so use it at the lowest level or do not use it at all; this is the essence of the matter.

"A POLITICAL CONVENTION MAY ALSO EMERGE REGARDING NOT BEING A PARTY CHAIRMAN"

In fact, if the needs of the system mature in that direction over time, a political convention may also emerge regarding the person who is the President not being a party executive or chairman, even if they use the possibility of being a party member. There are such conventions in many countries. For this reason, it is best not to intervene legally in such matters unless an absolute systemic necessity arises, and to trust the solutions that social and political dynamics will produce."

A WEEKEND NOTE:

Statements are being made by rote without any thought that the “partisan presidential system” is wrong. Actually, there is no government model called the partisan presidential system. Therefore, it cannot be claimed that something that does not exist is wrong.

Its name…

— Mehmet Uçum (@mehmetucum) August 24, 2024

News Source: 12punto