What strategy could be better for the AK Party?

Recent debates on different scenarios regarding the timing of the upcoming elections prove that Turkey has already entered into the long-lasting, painful electoral period. Three elections and a referendum are on the agenda. The dates of two out of three of the elections are fixed: Local elections will be held in March of 2014 and the election for the president of the republic will be in August of 2014.
Risks of insistence on presidential system General elections are forecast to be held in June of 2015, but they may be held earlier; this is up to the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) since it has the majority in Parliament. The date of a possible referendum on the new constitution is unknown at the moment. The schedule of these elections is critical, concerning political outcomes as well as the pace of the Turkish economy. The game maker is obviously the AK Party. Its goals and its maneuvering capabilities will determine the schedule. The goals are quite clear: The AK Party wants a new constitution in which a presidential or semi-presidential regime will be integrated. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan wants to be elected president of a presidential regime, and preferably in the first round, supported by a comfortable majority. Furthermore, the AK Party, as the incumbent party, wants to win the coming general elections with a number of seats exceeding 330 -- the majority required to bring the new constitution to referendum -- in case it is not possible to hold a referendum before the general elections. Here are too many, and quite ambitious, goals. How about the maneuvering capabilities? The way is very narrow and there are unwelcome constraints. First of all, the AK Party does not possess the 330 seats it needs; it lacks only a few of them, but since the voting on constitutional changes is confidential, it can never be positive it has secured the support of all of its deputies. The additional votes to support its constitutional proposal can be provided only by the deputies of the pro-Kurdish Peace and Democracy Party (BDP) and possibly by some deputies of the Republican People's Party (CHP) that belong to its social democratic faction. So, the AK Party must look for compromises with those deputies. The problem is that they are firmly opposed to the presidential regime, at least as it is suggested by the AK Party. It is clear that the AK Party must give up its presidential regime goal if it desires to have a new constitution before the presidential election, and even before local elections. Indeed, the success of the settlement process with the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) and with the BDP depends on the democratic reforms in the electoral system, the laws regarding political parties, the judiciary system and, last but not least, the Constitution. The constitutional reform cannot be done without the support of the BDP. On the other hand, the success of the settlement process is vital for the electoral success of the AK Party in the coming elections. Another factor that is not vital but very important for the electoral success of the ruling party is the attitude of voters who support the AK Party based on its management of the economy.      Now, the economy is not doing well. Signs of a “middle income trap” are increasing for Turkey. Gross domestic product (GDP) growth is under 3 percent. The unemployment rate has not yet shown an alarming rise, but this is because of the extent of negative labor productivity gains during the last few quarters. As a result, the income per capita has started to stagnate. The main reason for this stagnation is the postponement of difficult economic reforms because of possible political costs, precisely in deference to the coming elections. Those difficult reforms could have caused vote losses for the AK Party, but if the economy continues to be trapped in a low-growth regime, the more time the elections take, the more the AK Party will risk losing electors. Given these constraints, I think, the only rational strategy for the AK Party -- without giving up its goals and ambitions -- should be the following: Postpone ambitions for the presidency after the general elections. Successfully finish democratic reforms in collaboration with the BDP and the social democratic faction of CHP before local elections. The referendum can be held by the end of this year. Mr. Erdoğan will be able to be elected in August of next year and, I guess, it would be with a very large electoral support -- given the success of the peace process, which is capable of overshadowing increasing economic troubles. Then, proceed to early elections in autumn 2014, in which a referendum majority for the AK Party is highly probable if, by then, the electoral system is reformed, canceling the 10 percent threshold. This also would require strongly downsizing the electoral districts at the same time. Doing so, the new AK Party government will be able to focus on economic reforms earlier, and this way it would gain valuable time for the Turkish economy and minimize the political risks it would face otherwise.

Once again on the presidential debate

Yetkisiz cumhurbaşkanlığına hayır The insistence of the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) on a presidential or semi-presidential system is continuing in all its intensity. The AK Party does not have enough seats in Parliament to bring its own draft constitution, including the establishment of a presidential system, to a referendum; nevertheless, it seems that it hopes to find the few votes it is lacking in the ranks of the Peace and Democracy Party (BDP), which is close to the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), assuming that these deputies will support via secret vote a constitutional package that includes articles on a particular presidential system along with those defining citizenship under the “Republic of Turkey” instead of “Turkish citizenship” and allowing freedom of education in one's mother tongue. Indeed, these last articles could be sufficient to prompt the BDP deputies to vote for the whole package in the context of the “peace process.”
Turkey will for the first time elect its president by general election in June 2014. A president elected directly by the people in a two-round election is an important political event for Turkey capable of provoking political instability since the limits to powers of the president and prime minister are quite ambiguous in the existing constitution, which was inherited from the military regime in 1982. This ambiguous setup was aimed at allowing Gen. Kenan Evren, the leader of the Sept. 12, 1980 military coup, to control civilian power. So whatever the final regime, parliamentary or presidential, Turkey needs to redesign the powers of both of the president and the prime minister before electing the future president by a general vote. I had already explained some months ago my thoughts regarding this redesign in my column “What should we do with a president elected by a general vote?” (May 20, 2012), but I feel the need to restate them once again since the presidential debate is entering its final phase. The opposition, particularly the Republican People's Party (CHP), claims that the presidential system will turn into an authoritarian regime, while the AK Party argues that a president elected by a majority of voters would be strong enough to make difficult decisions, such as those needed to solve the Kurdish problem, and that the executive branch would be more efficient. As long as the president is elected by free elections, I believe the fears of an authoritarian regime are unfounded so long as an impartial judicial system is maintained. But at the same time, I do not share the AK Party's arguments regarding the “merits” of a presidential system. The gap in electoral support between the AK Party and the opposition is actually so large that the AK Party is secure enough to continue ruling Turkey for the foreseeable future, and its prime minister will continue to be quite powerful in a parliamentary system. That said, we still have to find an answer to the fundamental question: What should we do about a president who is elected by a general vote? Basically, there are two options: One, we could give up the idea of an elected president and go back to our old parliamentary regime before the 1980 military coup. Personally, I do not like this solution because I consider a president elected by a general vote to be a strong bastion against possible military coups, modern or post-modern, in the future. Do not forget that presidents up until 2007 acted as facilitators, if not collaborators, of coups. The second solution still involves a president elected by a general vote but at the same time corrects the current ambiguities by a withdrawal of the executive powers of the president. A president elected by a general vote could still play an important role in solving impasses in the political system. Thus the prerogative of the president to hold referendums should be maintained, while the ability to dissolve Parliament under specific conditions should be reinforced. Let me also to add that in Europe, there are many presidents, such as those of Austria, Portugal, Finland and Bulgaria, who are elected by general vote but who do not necessarily act in a presidential or semi-presidential system. Those countries have a standard parliamentary system.