There is an ongoing debate about presidential system in Turkey. This debate is mainly related with governmental systems. Thus, it is important to understand contemporary governmental systems in modern democracies to indicate benefits and disadvantages of the present Turkish governmental system and to compare the current system with others. In the first part of this article, the general features of different governmental systems will be analyzed in general concept.
To begin with, it must be said that modern governmental systems are in a strict relation with the “separation of powers” notion[1]. This concept was mainly argued by John Locke and Montesquieu. According to this term, there are three main “powers” of the state: legislation, execution and judiciary. As Lord Acton says “power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. Thus, this theory is significant in terms of two points: preventing the accumulation of power and ensuring freedoms in that way.
Initially, although rigid separation of powers is not an absolute requirement for democratic regimes today, the theory still maintains its significance to determine contemporary governmental systems. Moreover, the importance of the independence of the judiciary remains in modern democracies.
There are three main systems in the modern democratic states: presidential system, semi-presidential system and parliamentary system. All of these systems determined by relations between legislation and execution and also structure of the execution.
Rigid separation of powers can be seen solely in presidential system. In this system, legislation and execution separated completely. The president is the only head of the execution. Legislative and the executive organs are chosen directly by the people with different elections. Moreover, tenures of the legislative and the executive offices are independent from the other. Initially, legislation and execution cannot terminate each other’s tenure of the office.
Parliamentary system is also called as a “flexible separation of powers”. There is a dual executive in the parliamentary system. Both council of ministers and the head of the state have executive powers. Nonetheless, the head of the state has only symbolic position in the parliamentary system. Prime Minister and her/his cabinet are politically responsible side of the execution. On the other hand, cabinet needs legislative organ’s support to get started and continue to work. Furthermore, executive and legislative organs may terminate each other’s tenure of the office.
Semi-presidential system is a hybrid system between the parliamentary system and the presidential system. In this regime, there is a dual executive system like in the parliamentary system. On the other hand, execution does not rely on confidence of the legislative organ. Moreover, president elected directly by the people and s/he has more power than the head of the state that in the parliamentary system.
To sum up, the separation of powers concept has a significance to prevent power accumulation and to guarantee freedoms in that way. Nonetheless, today rigid separation of powers is not an absolute requirement for democratic regimes. On the other hand, relations between legislation and execution and the structure of execution determine contemporary governmental systems. In this concept, it is important to know that all of these systems may be applicable in different forms in the democratic regimes. Hence, it is not right to claim that presidential system is more or less democratic than parliamentary system. Therefore, democratic countries may choose any of contemporary governmental systems and this choice between these systems should be only based on the country’s own conditions.
References
- Erdoğan, Mustafa: Anayasal Demokrasi, Siyasal Kitabevi, 9. Baskı, Ankara, 2012.
- Gözler, Kemal: Türk Anayasa Hukuku Dersleri, Ekin Yayınları, 12. Baskı, Bursa, 2011.
- Özbudun, Ergun: Hükümet Sistemi Tartışmaları (1), http://www.zaman.com.tr/yorum_huk-met-sistemi-tartismalari1_2075165.html
- Özbudun, Ergun: Hükümet Sistemi Tartışmaları (2), http://www.zaman.com.tr/yorum_hukumet-sistemi-tartismalari2_2075548.html
- Özbudun, Ergun: Türk Anayasa Hukuku, Yetkin Yayınları, 9. Baskı, Ankara, 2008.
[1] Nonetheless, it is arguable that we can talk about “powers”. In the first place, sovereignty is unique and indivisible. Hence, there can be only different uses of this sovereignty. Thus, it is better to talk about different functions of the state and in this concept, separation of functions. Therefore, terminologically it would be better to talk about “seperation of functions” rather than “separation of powers”. As an instance, whether actions of legislation, judiciary or execution at the same time actions of the state. Consequently, it is not right to talk about separation of powers.
