What would a ‘strengthened’ parliamentary system mean for Turkey? – James in Turkey

Ignoring President Erdoans call for a new civilian constitution, the Turkish opposition is pushing forward with plans of its own

Its happening again.

More than half a decade since the last process petered out, the Turkish government is chattering once more about introducing the countrys first new civilian constitution.

Its a careful choice of words: civilian, because the previous two efforts were brought in after military coups in 1961 and 1982; first new, because the republic was founded by civilians in the Ataturk era.

President Recep Tayyip Erdoans words this week announcing a revival of the process would have been music to European ears a decade ago.

By their nature, constitutions must obtain the support of an entire society if possible, but certainly a vast majority, he told his partys parliamentary group on Wednesday. This can only be possible if the new constitution is prepared through a formula that has a place for everyone in the country.

He went on: Our preference is for all our political parties to take part in this process. We will demonstrate a sincere effort for this to the end.

The trouble is that, unlike a similar all-party constitutional effort that made some progress before falling apart in 2013, Turkeys opposition parties now do not believe him.

They have been working, quite openly and for quite some time, on an alternative: a cross-party deal that would reverse the executive presidency system introduced four years ago.

In its place they plan what they call a strengthened parliamentary system but beyond abolishing Mr Erdoans executive presidency and restoring the post of prime minister, there is very little detail publicly available yet.

So far, there are two main documents in circulation:

There is another efforts in the works from Ali Babacan, another former AK Party politician who now leads the Democracy and Progress (DEVA) Party, but no policy document exists publicly for this.

There is a lot of overlap between the two documents currently in circulation. Here is what we do know:

Both opposition proposals involve restoring the post of prime minister and the concept of collective cabinet government. The presidency would be scaled back to a largely ceremonial role and be elected by parliament, not the public.

"Ceremonial" Turkish presidencies have always some hard powers, including: appointing and dismissing prime ministers, calling occasional cabinet meetings and a one-time veto on laws passed by parliament

Appointing ministers; passing laws by decree

with power to veto laws once, but fewer direct appointments

with power to veto laws once, but fewer direct appointments

Both proposals draw attention to the concept of constructive no-confidence meaning that a majority of MPs can vote to bring down a government only if they also vote to nominate a replacement. This, they say, will help prevent a return to the chaotic coalitions of the 1970s and 1990s.

No time limit for a reply.

No time limit for a reply.

Time limits for a reply.

Time limits for a reply.

"Gensoru" in Turkish

MPs can only unseat the president by calling early elections

A government falls if a majority of MPs vote against it

A government falls if a majority of MPs vote against it AND vote to support a replacement

A government falls if a majority of MPs vote against it AND vote to support a replacement

Under both proposals, the 10% electoral threshold would be reduced and presidency would last for longer than a five-year parliamentary term. They differ on the details.

The national share of the vote a party must receive before it can win seats in parliament

Originally posted here:
What would a 'strengthened' parliamentary system mean for Turkey? - James in Turkey