Turkish referendum; good for Ireland too?

recedite

The referendum proposes a switch from a UK style parliamentary democracy to a more US style presidential one.

While generally described in the media as a power grab by the authoritarian Erdogan, that is not necessarily the case.
Proposed new Executive Orders issued by the president would be deemed invalid if they contadicted legislation enacted by the parliament. We have seen this happening recently in the US, where the system provides an effective curb on the president's powers.

The President becomes both the head of state and head of government, with the power to appoint and sack ministers and VP. The president can issue decrees about executive. If legislation makes a law about the same topic that President issued an executive order, decree will become invalid and parliamentery law become valid.

If we had a similar constitutional referendum in Ireland we could make the same switch.

It could result in a more effective government. For example in the Irish Water debacle, the government would not find itself hamstrung in the kind of stalemate in which it now finds itself.

Also, in Ireland's case, it would result in the separation of powers being improved. In our current system the Taoiseach has effective control of two powers; both the Dail and "the government" (ie both the legislative and the executive powers of the state) while the president is nothing but a figurehead.

Nody

No it is definitely the case of a power grab by Erdogan; he wants to be the new dictator Sultan of Turkey and transform it from a secular Muslim country to a Muslim religious court style of country instead. Erdogan has also used every excuse to undermine anything and everything that could possibly stop him inc. the parliament, the military, the court system, the free press etc.

The sad part is it will take until he dies for Turkey to have a chance to return to even a semblance of democracy again but it's along with Trump a clear case of you get the man in power you deserve in a democracy.

recedite

Nody wrote: »

No it is definitely the case of a power grab by Erdogan....

If that is the case, then he is going about it the wrong way. What he needs is an Enabling Act instead.

recedite

recedite wrote: »

Also, in Ireland's case, it would result in the separation of powers being improved. In our current system the Taoiseach has effective control of two powers; both the Dail and "the government" (ie both the legislative and the executive powers of the state) while the president is nothing but a figurehead.

If the Taoiseach has effective control of two powers why can we not get anything done? Even Bertie couldnt get a Bertie Bowl built at a time when we had more money than we knew what to do with.

William Blum wrote that Americas most dangerous export was it's version of democracy. I think giving Erdogan executive powers is definitely a power grab and should definitely be feared if not worried about.

recedite

Deleted User wrote: »

If the Taoiseach has effective control of two powers why can we not get anything done?

Good question. In a minority govt. like we have at present, he only holds "power" because he has done a deal with other people (FF) who won't let him do certain things. Which leaves him in partial control of the two powers, and nobody at all in control of whatever he lacks control over.
But whenever the Taoiseach is the leader of a majority party he does hold total control over the two powers.

So this contrasts with a presidential system where the president would always have total control of the executive power, and the Dail would have total control over legislation. The Seanad would be superflous, as it is now, but could be retained in a similar way to the UK House of Lords, which it apes.

Victor

A Taoiseach / prime minister can be deposed by 50%+1 of the governing party / coalition. A president might only be deposable by 50%+1 of a parliament.

recedite

Victor wrote: »

A Taoiseach / prime minister can be deposed by 50%+1 of the governing party / coalition.

Is that a good thing? It means a private political party holds a power that should really be held only by either the judiciary, or the sovereign people.

A topical point though, given that Enda looks like he is aiming to transfer his power to one of his cronies in the near future.

Victor

The ability to remove a lame-duck (Reynolds) taoisech / prime-minister or one that has lost the run of himself (Ahern) is important.

wes

Erdogan has lost the run of himself. He could have used the attempted coup to enhance democracy in Turkey, instead he wants to make himself a tin pot dictator.

Nody

wes wrote: »

Erdogan has lost the run of himself. He could have used the attempted coup to enhance democracy in Turkey, instead he wants to make himself a tin pot dictator.

Why would you expect the coup to suddenly change the direction he's been working on for the last decade?

wes

Nody wrote: »

Why would you expect the coup to suddenly change the direction he's been working on for the last decade?

That it may have scared him to moderate his bahaviour. I was rather spectacularly wrong.

Nody

wes wrote: »

That it may have scared him to moderate his bahaviour. I was rather spectacularly wrong.

To late; he neutered the army in the early years and after that he felt untouchable. The only thing the coup did was scare him and scared little men always lash out but they don't change direction; if anything they accelerate the goals they want to achieve.

wes

Nody wrote: »

To late; he neutered the army in the early years and after that he felt untouchable. The only thing the coup did was scare him and scared little men always lash out but they don't change direction; if anything they accelerate the goals they want to achieve.

The only hope is that he fails spectacularly.

recedite

If we switched to a more US style presidential system, I doubt there would be any of this talk about giving votes to "the diaspora".

Though having said that, the Turks are obviously giving their diaspora a vote in the upcoming referendum. Whether their diaspora will be allowed to vote for any future president is another matter though. Dissidents such as the Gulen followers tend to be based abroad.

Blowfish

There's plenty to dislike about how bogged down overly bureaucratic institutions/governments can get, but the flip side is that they do tend to produce stable democracies that are pretty resistant to takeover from authoritarian autocrats that are hungry for power. Given that choice, I'd certainly prefer to stick with what we have.

recedite

Its not about bureaucracy V authoritarianism though. That is a misunderstanding based on the assumption that Erdogan is a demagogue (which is true, but irrelevant to the constitutional matter).
In France and the USA the president holds executive power, they are stable systems, and they have plenty of bureaucracy. They have good separation of powers, which safeguards democracy.

The idea of power being invested in a prime minister is just a vestige of monarchy. The prime minister was originally the confidante and the personal representative of the monarch, though in later times they were elected.
100 years ago Britain controlled both Ireland and Turkey, so its not surprising that we have both inherited some vestiges of the British monarchy. Good luck to Turks as they dump these useless vestigial organs.

Victor

recedite wrote: »

100 years ago Britain controlled both Ireland and Turkey

100 years ago, the UK was at war with the Ottoman Empire.

recedite

After WWI the Ottoman empire was partitioned and occupied by British and French troops. Turkish nationalists fought back, and following a guerilla war of independence 1919-1922 they established their own independent republic.

The Turks view of what a democratic republic should look like was strongly influenced by the British parliamentary system, which had itself evolved from a monarchy as opposed to being purpose designed from scratch like the US presidential system.

So there are a lot of parallels with Irish history, oddly enough.

Blowfish

recedite wrote: »

Its not about bureaucracy V authoritarianism though. That is a misunderstanding based on the assumption that Erdogan is a demagogue (which is true, but irrelevant to the constitutional matter).
In France and the USA the president holds executive power, they are stable systems, and they have plenty of bureaucracy. They have good separation of powers, which safeguards democracy.

And this is exactly the problem with the Turkish referendum, it reduces the separation of powers hugely. You mentioned that the President's decree's can be 'overruled' if Parliament enacts legislation in the same area, but this ignores the fact that the President will have veto power over legislation so nothing's going to get enacted that he doesn't want enacted anyway.

Also, getting rid of the President will be near impossible. Parliament can vote to indict (impeach) the President with a 2/3 majority, which then goes to the Turkish equivalent of a Supreme court. Any guesses on how that'll go when the President gets to appoint 12 of the 15 members of this court?

recedite

Blowfish wrote: »

the President will have veto power over legislation so nothing's going to get enacted that he doesn't want enacted anyway.

As always, the devil is in the detail, and no doubt Erdogan will want to tweak a good system so that it works in his favour.
But what is your source for that claim? AFAIK a presidential veto would be overuled by a parliamentary majority.

Blowfish wrote: »

Also, getting rid of the President will be near impossible. Parliament can vote to indict (impeach) the President with a 2/3 majority, which then goes to the Turkish equivalent of a Supreme court. Any guesses on how that'll go when the President gets to appoint 12 of the 15 members of this court?

In Ireland all of our judges are political appointees. The only reason it works at all, is that judges stay in position much longer than the administration that appoints them. Hence there are always plenty of them around who have been appointed at some time in the past by the opposition. As long as the current administration is not allowed to fire judges, it works reasonably well. The same should apply in Turkey.

Having said that, I prefer the continental european tradition where selection is based on merit, not on political influence and "who you know". Any good student who does well in exams can go on to do the specific legal training and eventually become a judge.

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

In Ireland all of our judges are political appointees. The only reason it works at all, is that judges stay in position much longer than the administration that appoints them. Hence there are always plenty of them around who have been appointed at some time in the past by the opposition. As long as the current administration is not allowed to fire judges, it works reasonably well. The same should apply in Turkey.

Having said that, I prefer the continental european tradition where selection is based on merit, not on political influence and "who you know". Any good student who does well in exams can go on to do the specific legal training and eventually become a judge.

And yet the general view is that continental judges are more subservient to the government than judges in common-law systems. As career civil servants, professional advancement depends on impressing their (political) masters.

And, for the record, I think it's not quite fair to suggest that the Irish system works only because the judiciary contains plenty of people appointed by different administrations. I think most observers would agree that its very hard to detect any bias in Irish judges that ties back to the party in power when they were appointed. It's certainly true that support for/involvement with a political party improves your chances of being appointed but, once appointed, judges are genuinely independent and there's no sense that the party that appointed them expects any favours from them, or that a judge appointed through the influence of (say) the Labour party will deliver more "socialist" judgments than a judge appointed through the influence of some more right-wing party.

CrabRevolution

It always amazes me how people in the USA are totally fine with having openly "conservative" and "liberal" judges on their supreme court, and that in a lot of cases you know in advance what each justice's opinion will be before the case is even argued.

Peregrinus

CrabRevolution wrote: »

It always amazes me how people in the USA are totally fine with having openly "conservative" and "liberal" judges on their supreme court, and that in a lot of cases you know in advance what each justice's opinion will be before the case is even argued.

I think that's overstated, actually. People seize on the question of which party was in office when a particular judge was nominated because that's an easily quantifiable metric, but it's not as good a predictor of how the judge will decide issues as the commentary would have you believe. Presidents/Senates try to choose judges whose judicial philosophies they like, but once appointed the judges are not beholden to them, and their thinking does continue to develop. The decisions they give can be a nasty surprise to the people who appointed them.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think most observers would agree that its very hard to detect any bias in Irish judges that ties back to the party in power when they were appointed.

"Hard to detect", yes.
And yet.... such cases do occasionally come to light.

Victor

recedite wrote: »

"Hard to detect", yes.
And yet.... such cases do occasionally come to light.

That's not quite the same thing. That's interference in the application of justice, not (say) a supreme court decision on ideological grounds that property rights should be protected much more strongly against the common good or vice versa.

Peregrinus

What Victor said. Plus, i don't recall any suggestion that Hugh O'Flaherty's involvement was in any way linked to Fianna Fail affiliations. Rather, there was a personal, "friend-of-a-friend" connection to Sheedy through Sheedy's employment.

Mutant z

Erdogan is nothing more than a power mad tyrant,he must be stood up to at all costs.

recedite

Victor wrote: »

That's not quite the same thing. That's interference in the application of justice...

Its political interference in the judicial sytem; pulling strings and calling in favours.
The whole tangled web was never really unravelled, because two judges resigned and that put an end to it.
But it started off with Bertie Ahern owing a favour, and then calling in favours from people in the judicial system. That is a fundamental breach of the separation of powers, which separation should be designed into a proper republic to prevent exactly that type of corruption.

And it ended up with politicians awarding (or trying to award) various plum jobs to the fall guys.
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/plum-job-for-sheedy-affair-pal-of-ahern-26241241.html
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/bench-for-exjudges-wife-26646789.html

recedite

Victory declared for Yes vote at 51.3%, with nearly all votes now counted.
Turkey will now progress on to a US style presidential system, ditching the UK style PM.
It will of course be portrayed by the European media as a power grab by Erdogan, but constitutional changes will last far beyond one person's lifespan. Its like opposing US independence/constitution back in 1776 on the basis that George Washington was too uppity.

A good result for Turkey.

PopePalpatine

You're just hoping your beloved Donald would take inspiration, aren't you? :rolleyes:

I love how a power grab is just "uppity" nowadays. :rolleyes:

oscarBravo

recedite wrote: »

It will of course be portrayed by the European media as a power grab by Erdogan, but constitutional changes will last far beyond one person's lifespan.

There's some weird logic in that sentence. It's almost as if the fact that future presidents will be beneficiaries of the power grab makes it not a power grab.

seamus

oscarBravo wrote: »

There's some weird logic in that sentence. It's almost as if the fact that future presidents will be beneficiaries of the power grab makes it not a power grab.

"It's not like he's immortal. When Erdogan dies, someone else will have the powers that are now being enacted."

That's how I read his post.

josip

seamus wrote: »

"It's not like he's immortal. When Erdogan dies, someone else will have the powers that are now being enacted."

That's how I read his post.

Can Erdogan nominate his successor according to the new powers or is there an open election?

recedite

josip wrote: »

Can Erdogan nominate his successor according to the new powers or is there an open election?

Of course not. He can stand for election as president in 2019. If he wins that election, he'll be the first president under the new system in which the president has executive control of the government. If not he'll be remembered as the guy who instigated a new and better system, but never got to use the new powers.
If he wins, he'll have a five year term, with a max of two consecutive terms.

In short, he's as much a dictator as George Washington was.

josip

recedite wrote: »

Of course not. He can stand for election as president in 2019. If he wins that election, he'll be the first president under the new system in which the president has executive control of the government. If not he'll be remembered as the guy who instigated a new and better system, but never got to use the new powers.
If he wins, he'll have a five year term, with a max of two consecutive terms.

In short, he's as much a dictator as George Washington was.

Has his curtailment of the media been misrepresented then?

recedite

He did shut down some opposition newspapers alright, and he threatened to unleash a horde of migrants into Greece if he didn't get a shedload of money from the EU, and he used the power of the state to encourage a Yes vote (which was also normal here up until the McKenna case in 1995).
But he did all that under the existing parliamentary system.
This thread is really about whether the new presidential system will be better than the old system. I'm not particularly a huge fan of Erdogan himself.

DeadHand

recedite wrote: »

Of course not. He can stand for election as president in 2019. If he wins that election, he'll be the first president under the new system in which the president has executive control of the government. If not he'll be remembered as the guy who instigated a new and better system, but never got to use the new powers.
If he wins, he'll have a five year term, with a max of two consecutive terms.

In short, he's as much a dictator as George Washington was.

He's 68 years old- he's designed it to make himself ruler for life.

You can be sure he'll win as many terms as he is alive and able for- he is popular but, more importantly, he's not above cheating and/or eliminating the opposition. He's not to type to lose graciously and retire. He's also not to type to leave without anointing a preferred successor.

Erdogen in charge isn't good but is hardly a cataclysm- he's a pragmatic leader first and foremost, he is unlikely to start any wars or transform Turkey into Saudi Arabia. He has Islamist roots and Islamist leanings but my reading is he is more interested in his own empowerment than the total triumph of Islam over secular Turkey. His Islamism may be more a means of appealing to the conservative voters on which he relies than a primary driving force.

Where these new powers are dangerous is not so much in how Erdogen uses them but in who may follow him. There isn't much stopping his successor (or even an elderly Erdogen) doing some Putin style voodoo to extend his reign indefinitely now that the base powers have been established. Turkey simply isn't America- the checks and balances will not be there. The media is weak, the tradition of anti-authoritism and intellectual dissent isn't as strong.

Where the ultimate danger for Turkey and the world lies is in if the next guy is a True Beliver: a hardcore Islamist. An Islamic Republic of Turkey, on top of making life miserable for its women, sexual minorities and what few religious minorities remain there, could represent a massive threat to Europe as an export base and conduit of Islamism and Islamist violence a la Saudi Arabia (which it already is to a smaller, less deliberate extent). It could do much to complete the Islamist victory in the ME and further facilitate its incursion into Europe.

This incursion is already well under way, of course, but a radically Islamified Turkey controlling the gates and wielding massive geopolitical clout could serve to strengthen it massively, making Europe's future a whole lot bleaker than it already is.

recedite

DeadHand wrote: »

he's designed it to make himself ruler for life.

5 year term of office. Nothing unusual in that.
If you want to contradict me, show some evidence.

DeadHand

recedite wrote: »

5 year term of office. Nothing unusual in that.
If you want to contradict me, show some evidence.

With two consecutive terms of five years each that he'll win even if he loses.

That's 15 years- I don't imagine he plans to live far beyond 83. Even if by some miracle he's still formiddable at that point there won't be much to stop him gerrymandering the thing again.

Ruler for Life, see?

josip

Given that it's impossible to provide evidence of future events, perhaps it would be insightful to identify countries that already have a similar electoral system to what Turkey will now have with an equivalent charismatic leader? Zimbabwe?

recedite

DeadHand wrote: »

With two consecutive terms of five years each that he'll win even if he loses.

You'll have to explain that. If you allege he wins by vote rigging, then say how that will be made any easier under the new system?

recedite

josip wrote: »

Given that it's impossible to provide evidence of future events, perhaps it would be insightful to identify countries that already have a similar electoral system to what Turkey will now have...

A similar US constitutional system produced Trump, but also Obama. I don't see how the charisma, or otherwise, of the current leader matters to the election of any future leaders.
If you mean the electoral system as opposed to the new constitutional arrangement, I don't think that is changing?

DeadHand

recedite wrote: »

You'll have to explain that. If you allege he wins by vote rigging, then say how that will be made any easier under the new system?

Yes, he rigs elections- by media censorship and simply imprisoning the opposition. Direct electoral fraud is more difficult to prove but highly probable- even leaving it aside he clearly cheats.

The changes won't make cheating any easier, it will be as easy as ever. He just won't have to do it as often and he will enjoy greater powers after his inevitable "victories".

Erdogen is undeniably popular and effective. But he is no democrat- he uses democracy as a means to his own ends. Therefore, these changes were not brought about to benefit Turkey they were brought about to benefit Recep Erdogen.

DeadHand

recedite wrote: »

A similar US constitutional system produced Trump, but also Obama. I don't see how the charisma, or otherwise, of the current leader matters to the election of any future leaders.
If you mean the electoral system as opposed to the new constitutional arrangement, I don't think that is changing?

Turkey is not the USA.

The terms are longer and there are more of them. This creates more opportunity for a single figure to dominate the political landscape more utterly and for longer- dictatorship lite and a stepping stone toward full dictatorship. American checks and balances such as a strong, independent judiciary, Congress and media aren't in place to the same extent.

Culturally, Turkey is far more likely to produce and succumb to a dictator- more worryingly a religiously driven dictator. This is more likely the first step on the road to an Iranian style theocracy than an American style democracy.

They already have a ready made half-dictator who will capitalise on these changes he devised for his own advancement and will have many other potentially far more dangerous men waiting to do so in the future.

DeadHand

Having said all that, I don't think secular authoritism is the worst option for a Muslim country- not when one looks at what the likes of Iraq, Libya and Syria have become. What Egypt was on the road to before it was rescued by its military.

Erdogen does not strike me as a religious fanatic- despite his Islamist sympathies. As a strongman, he is a cynical, often violent thug but nowhere near Saddam or Assad levels of brutality. He seems pragmatic and logical- more Putin than Kim. Of course, I could be wrong and he may roll out the crazy now he's strengthened his position but I doubt it somehow.

Though it's terrible for a great many good people within Turkey itself and sets democracy backward a few generations in that country- an Erdogen dictatorship or semi-dictatorship is not something the broader world needs to be overly fearful about. It could be worse.

What should be feared is who may come after, what may seize these powers after Erdogen is gone. It could be a far more fundamentalist and/or expansionist figure or movement. Turkey is a powerful beast in a crucial position- with the wrong people in charge it could wrought great evil. Après moi, le deluge type thing.

Victor

recedite wrote: »

5 year term of office. Nothing unusual in that.
If you want to contradict me, show some evidence.

No, it's his existing time in government, plus as many terms as he can get in future if he does a Putin-Medvedev style swap.

recedite

DeadHand wrote: »

Having said all that, I don't think secular authoritism is the worst option for a Muslim country- not when one looks at what the likes of Iraq, Libya and Syria have become. What Egypt was on the road to before it was rescued by its military.

Erdogen does not strike me as a religious fanatic- despite his Islamist sympathies. As a strongman, he is a cynical, often violent thug but nowhere near Saddam or Assad levels of brutality. He seems pragmatic and logical- more Putin than Kim.

I agree with all that. He headed up an islamist party in his early days as mayor of Istanbul, but he seems to have largely dropped all that, which implies that it was just a political expediency or vote-grabber for him at the time. The great thing about a populist is that they do whatever is popular in order to gain power, which in essence is democracy. All politicians want power. He's probably not much different to the alternatives; an army junta or a Gulen administration.

Victor wrote: »

No, it's his existing time in government, plus as many terms as he can get in future if he does a Putin-Medvedev style swap.

Russia has a PM and a president which enables that trick, whereas Turkey has just voted to abolish the office of the PM. Its a switch from UK style system to a US style one.
Not a switch to the Russian style, which is not an ideal constitutional system.

Chips Lovell

I think the main concern is that Erdogan has created a very powerful executive presidency without the checks and balances employed by the US and France.

But under the new constitution, unlike the Assembl?e Nationale and Congress, the Turkish parliament will not control the details of spending or have a say over presidential appointments. Neither will it be able to subject the cabinet to questions, except in writing.

And that's just the start of it. Power could be concentrated in the hands of one man for a very long time, which is never healthy. He's already been in power since 2003 and now could potentially be in office until 2029. George Bush was in power back in 2003. Imagine him being able to hang on for that long?

Despite holding an executive presidency, the constitution permits him to retain control over his party, allowing him to handpick candidates. Again, no US president has ever been able to stack Congress with his own people. It also gives him significant control over appointments of judges and prosecutors.

Long story short, if you concentrate such power in the hands of one person, they need to be accountable to a strong parliament and judiciary, something which this constitution lacks.

If anyone has any doubts about what's going on here, go read the Venice Commission's detailed assessment of the constitutional changes:

...the substance of the proposed constitutional amendments represents a dangerous step backwards in the constitutional democratic tradition of Turkey. The Venice Commission wishes to stress the dangers of degeneration of the proposed system towards an authoritarian and personal regime. In addition, the timing is most unfortunate and is itself cause of concern: the current state of emergency does not provide for the due democratic setting for a constitutional referendum.

This isn't like the US or French systems. It's more like Russia.

recedite

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

And that's just the start of it. Power could be concentrated in the hands of one man for a very long time, which is never healthy. He's already been in power since 2003 and now could potentially be in office until 2029.

That's a once off situation though, because he'll only be allowed 2 terms as President.
The concerns spelled out in the Venice document regarding the presidents ability to appoint ministers are overblown IMO.
The word "ministers" in English can imply the parliament, but as the Turks say

Since a strict separation of powers is envisaged in the government system brought, it is accepted that, in that case deputies are appointed as Vice-presidents or ministers, their membership of the Assembly will terminate.

So I think these "ministers" would be more akin to the secretaries of the state departments which the US President normally appoints in the first weeks and months of the administration. So not a problem, and still a full separation of powers between the Presidents administration (the executive arm of the state) and the national parliament (the legislature)