Turkey’s New Constitution Would End Its Democracy


Date posted: January 25, 2017

Noah Feldman

With all eyes on the U.S. as it inaugurates a new leader, Turkey is preparing to amend its constitution to make its president even more powerful than the American executive.

There’s nothing inherently wrong with replacing parliamentary government with a presidential system. The problem is timing and context: Turkey’s proposed changes, which will go to a national referendum after being approved by parliament, follow the unsuccessful coup against increasingly autocratic President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

In practice, a revised constitution would make it much easier for Erdogan to consolidate power entirely, taking Turkey out of the democratic column and making it into a dictatorship, pure and simple.


A further proposed change sought by Erdogan’s AK Party is to give the president power over the High Council of Judges and Prosecutors. Erdogan has already effectively taken control by purging that body in the aftermath of the coup. The proposed amendments would make that control permanent.


The proposed constitutional revision has lots of moving parts. But the most important is to transform Turkey’s modified parliamentary system into a presidential one. The president’s powers now are, in principle, much more limited. He governs alongside a prime minister chosen by the parliamentary majority, who in turn appoints a cabinet that’s responsible to parliament. An important practical and symbolic mechanism of parliamentary oversight of the government is the right of parliament to demand that cabinet ministers appear before it to answer inquiries — a right known as “interpellation.”

The new draft would shift the basic structure of the system by abolishing the office of prime minister and giving the president the authority to appoint the members of the cabinet. As part of this change, the parliament’s right to interpellate cabinet ministers would be removed.

Americans would find that aspect of the change unremarkable. The U.S. president appoints his own cabinet, albeit with the advice and consent of the Senate. Cabinet secretaries appear before Congress by courtesy, not by an inherent congressional right to question them.


In practice, a revised constitution would make it much easier for Erdogan to consolidate power entirely, taking Turkey out of the democratic column and making it into a dictatorship, pure and simple.


But the proposed Turkish Constitution goes further still in allowing the president to be the head of a political party. That means the president could exercise direct control over what candidates his party runs for office. Erdogan could handpick parliamentarians from his own party, who would be extremely unlikely to exercise a check over him, because he could also kick them out of the party.

In practice, of course, the U.S. president is also the head of the party to which he belongs. But in the U.S. system, that doesn’t give him the authority to pick congressional candidates. That power lies with primary voters, donors and party leaders.

Under the changed system, Turkish presidential elections would take place at the same time as parliamentary elections, every five years. That would make it difficult for voters to express dissension at the national level during the president’s term, because there would be no midterm elections.

A further proposed change sought by Erdogan’s AK Party is to give the president power over the High Council of Judges and Prosecutors. Erdogan has already effectively taken control by purging that body in the aftermath of the coup. The proposed amendments would make that control permanent.

In the U.S. presidential system, of course, the executive appoints federal judges and senior federal prosecutors. As long as they subsequently serve their terms on good behavior, they can function relatively independently. The trouble is that, as Erdogan’s purge shows, there’s no similar long-term guarantee of de facto independence in the Turkish system. Erdogan’s judges and prosecutors would be seen as political functionaries, and might well actually be subordinate to the executive. A proposed nominal guarantee of judicial and prosecutorial “impartiality” is only as good as political reality makes it.

Perhaps the most clever and pernicious element of the proposed change is that it limits the president to two terms — but only starting with ratification and new elections. That would allow Erdogan to remain in power until 2029, when he’ll be 75. By then he would have been running Turkey as prime minister or president for a whopping 26 years. That’s not a recipe for democracy, to put it mildly.

The entire reform package must pass the parliament with 330 votes out of 550. The ruling AK Party doesn’t have enough votes on its own, but it can reach the threshold by getting the votes of the nationalist, far-right MH Party. Then the package would go to a referendum.

In 2010, Turkish voters approved constitutional reforms pushed by the AK Party, by 58 percent to 42 percent. The vote is unlikely to be so lopsided this time. In practice, the vote will be a referendum on Erdogan himself.


Perhaps the most clever and pernicious element of the proposed change is that it limits the president to two terms — but only starting with ratification and new elections. That would allow Erdogan to remain in power until 2029, when he’ll be 75. By then he would have been running Turkey as prime minister or president for a whopping 26 years. That’s not a recipe for democracy, to put it mildly.


Absent the failed coup, it seems conceivable that Erdogan could have lost a bid to make Turkey into a presidential system designed to maximize his power. But the coup unfortunately provides ammunition for the argument that he needs greater authority to run the country.

If the presidential change prevails in Turkey, and is used to subvert democracy still further, it will contribute to the perception in many places that the presidential form of government is simply a prelude to autocracy. Traditionally, the U.S. system has stood as a bulwark against those arguments. Whether it remains so is the most significant question of Donald Trump’s presidency that has just begun.

Source: Bloomberg , January 22, 2017


Related News

Gülen Movement has been used to undermine Ergenekon trial

‘Whenever new evidence surfaces related to Ergenekon, some people claim that that evidence was planted by Gülen sympathizers within the police force. This is quite unrealistic because important documents have been found in places where the police have never been able to access’ 5 February 2012 / YONCA POYRAZ DOĞAN, İSTANBUL A veteran journalist has […]

Texans experience Turkish culture by volunteering

After helping to distribute charity Kimse Yok Mu’s (Is Anybody There) Eid al-Adha care packages to families in Turkey, four Americans travelling across the country shared their satisfying experiences with local Turkish families.

Think Twice on Turkey: Erdogan’s Purges Are a Warning to Washington

“Whatever the merits of the government’s claims about the movement’s role in the coup, which Gülen himself denies, the speed and scale of the dismissals make it clear that many of those affected by the purge are caught up in it not because there is clear evidence of their involvement in the coup but merely because of their perceived association with the Gülen movement.”

The role of civil society in Turkey’s democratization

BÜLENT KENEŞ  May 22, 2012 Neither the state nor political parties can act as guarantees for democratization and democracy. With the fact that the main impetus behind and guarantee for our democratization is our ever-growing civil society, we need to consider whether we are attaching due importance to “Civil Society Organizations”. In the speech I […]

Samanyolu TV celebrates its 20th year

Samanyolu TV celebrated the 20th anniversary of its foundation with a ceremony featuring a concert and several activities at the İstanbul Congress Center as hundreds of guests from the media, political world and business world thronged the hall to witness the night.

Planned prep school ban [in Turkey] disregards basic rights as in single-party era

The government’s intentions to shut down private examination preparation centers [in Turkey] in spite of a strong backlash from educators, economists, students, parents and even terrorism experts brings back memories of the authoritarianism of the early years of the republic, when a single-party regime was in place.

Latest News

Fethullah Gülen’s Condolence Message for South African Human Rights Defender Archbishop Desmond Tutu

Hizmet Movement Declares Core Values with Unified Voice

Ankara systematically tortures supporters of Gülen movement, Kurds, Turkey Tribunal rapporteurs say

Erdogan possessed by Pharaoh, Herod, Hitler spirits?

Devious Use of International Organizations to Persecute Dissidents Abroad: The Erdogan Case

A “Controlled Coup”: Erdogan’s Contribution to the Autocrats’ Playbook

Why is Turkey’s Erdogan persecuting the Gulen movement?

Purge-victim man sent back to prison over Gulen links despite stage 4 cancer diagnosis

University refuses admission to woman jailed over Gülen links

In Case You Missed It

Beacons of hope in Germany

Turkey-Kurdistan Regional Government ties: How and why did they improve this much?

The Government Response to Turkey’s Coup Is an Affront to Democracy

Why is the Turkish PM Erdoğan having difficulty?

One year after attempted coup, purges have left hundreds of Turkish academics imprisoned

JWF statement on allegations against Hizmet movement

International panel on Virgin Mary held in Istanbul

Copyright 2022 Hizmet News