Transformation of the governance system in Turkey - from a parliamentary system to a presidential system

In 2017, Türkiye abandoned the parliamentary system, which had been in place since 1876, and transitioned to a presidential system. The transition was justified by the longstanding political, economic, and social problems the country had been experiencing. As with many other issues in Türkiye, two dominant perspectives emerged. Those in favor of the presidential system mainly focused on the failures of the parliamentary system in Türkiye, while proponents of the parliamentary system criticized the presidential system, often referencing its applications in Latin America. In this context, it is essential to analyze the problems Türkiye faced in the 1990s and early 2000s to understand the fundamental reasons behind the transition to the presidential system. The 1990s were marked by political instability, coalition governments, economic crises, and weak leadership. During this period, short-lived coalitions formed by parties with differing ideologies hindered effective governance and led to widespread public distrust. Notable examples of this instability include the economic crises of 1994 and 2001, which underscored the inefficiency of state management. Issues such as high inflation, unemployment, and increasing external debt became pervasive during this time. In 2002, the Justice and Development Party (AKP) came to power, offering solutions to these crises and quickly garnering significant public support. The AKP’s single-party majority ended the era of unstable coalitions, creating optimism among citizens. Under Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s leadership, the party implemented economic reforms, infrastructure projects, and social policies, earning a reputation as Türkiye’s savior. This strong support enabled the AKP to push its agenda with minimal resistance. Discussions on transitioning to a presidential system gained prominence during this period. The AKP criticized the parliamentary system’s inefficiency and promoted the presidential model as a means to ensure effective governance. In 2017, following a contentious referendum, the presidential system was adopted with public approval, despite strong opposition criticism. Erdoğan’s leadership shaped public perceptions, with his early successes elevating him to a heroic status. Despite later economic stagnation, unemployment, and rising inflation, Erdoğan retained his core support base, sustaining his image as a strong leader. This study will examine the difficult processes Türkiye experienced under the parliamentary system, starting from the late Ottoman period, and then explore the transformative years of the 1990s and early 2000s under AKP leadership. Finally, it will evaluate whether the presidential system has been effective in addressing the existing problems, assessing its strengths and weaknesses. The goal is to provide a comprehensive analysis of whether the presidential system has truly met Türkiye's needs and whether it can function as a successful governance model.