What share do we have in the government’s relaxation?
The ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party) has solved its “loyalty to the leader” issue. After the party’s extraordinary convention on May 22, there is no doubt left. All suspicion about disloyalty was proved false.
With the new cabinet holding its first meeting chaired by President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan at the Presidential Palace in Ankara, the new government’s high degree of loyalty has been certified.
With the situation as it is in the government, any slight doubt or hesitation can be taken as “low loyalty.” But the AK Party convention demonstrated how “unfaltering loyalty” should be, under the strict management and supervision of Justice Minister Bekir Bozdağ.
One of the unprecedented examples of this was the reading out of President Erdoğan’s message at the congress, during which all delegates stood at “attention” and in awe.
We now have a party and a cabinet whose unswerving loyalty has been tested and proven. So isn’t it right that the government’s relaxation should be reflected in society?
Now its loyalty has been proven, it is our right to expect from the ruling party that it stops being so involved with its own future and instead concentrates on matters of concern to us all.
There are two particularly urgent issues facing the AK Party: One is defeating terror. The other is putting back on track the constitutional order that has been derailed. The cost of delaying the democratic order is growing every day.
President Erdoğan is in the de facto position of a president affiliated with a political party. In practice, he is the head of the government and the party. The only basis of this power is the fact that he has been elected by popular vote. But how can it be ensured that this does not become a bad example? How can it be ensured that it does not lead to a bad precedent in the future?
The AK Party has the responsibility to take into account what will happen after Erdoğan. What if others who are elected by popular vote set up their own de facto rules? How would you show that being elected by popular vote does not grant you an exceptional status above the constitution, acting without respect for the rules?
You should also consider that the presidential system should not be seen as an alternative to “dual-headedness.” It is undeniable that the presidential system should rest on a kind of “multi-headedness.”
Do we really have to spell out that political systems where all powers are collected in one hand are not called democracies?
In democratic presidential systems power is distributed, authorities are shared with local administrations.
Erdoğan is now effectively the leader of the majority group in parliament, with the authority to control and approve the decisions of parliament. He also has direct and indirect appointment powers in the judiciary.
So he may control the government, the parliament and the judiciary. But he himself is not subject to the control of the parliament and the judiciary. He uses power but he cannot be held accountable.
Wouldn’t it be frightening, even for the most pro-Erdoğan types, to think of the danger that could be opened in the post-Erdoğan era?
It is of critical importance that checks and balances mechanisms should be established as soon as possible and separation of powers should be properly adjusted.
If there is a way to transfer the relaxation on the expression of new Prime Minister Binali Yıldırım to the entire society then this is it. A functioning democratic order and arrangement should be established, in place of the current disrupted one.