美国外交政策研究所-新土耳其的制度结构（英文）-2021.2-28页_20mb

Summary of "New Turkey" – The Institutional Structure of the Presidential Executive System

Core Content

This document provides an in-depth analysis of the transformation of Turkey's political and institutional structure under the leadership of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, focusing on the shift from a parliamentary system to a presidential executive system. It examines the implications of this change, particularly the centralization of power and the erosion of constitutional norms.

Main Points

• FPRI's Role: The Foreign Policy Research Institute (FPRI) is a non-partisan think tank dedicated to foreign policy and national security scholarship. It aims to educate policymakers and the public through historical, geographical, and cultural lenses.

• Institutional Guide: A reference book titled The Republic of Turkey State Institution Guide was once a comprehensive source for understanding Turkey's governmental structure, but it has become obsolete due to rapid institutional changes.

• Constitutional Framework: The document critiques the current state of Turkey's constitutional democracy, noting that the constitution is now seen more as an organizing schematic than a source of legitimacy.

• Schmittian vs. Liberal Sovereignty: The text contrasts liberal and realist views on sovereignty. The liberal tradition sees the constitution as the source of law and limits political power, while the realist tradition, as represented by Carl Schmitt, emphasizes the political sphere as the origin of sovereignty, with the ability to suspend the law when necessary.

• Erdogan's Vision: The presidential system under Erdoğan is seen as a means to consolidate power, shifting from a parliamentary model to one where the president is the central authority. This system allows for a more direct rule by the executive, bypassing the traditional checks and balances.

• The 2014 Election: Erdoğan's victory in the 2014 presidential election marked a significant shift. He effectively abandoned the principle of impartiality, positioning himself as the leader of the people rather than a neutral figure.

• Institutional Changes: The document highlights the chaotic and unpredictable nature of the new institutional structure, where ministries, agencies, and other bodies are not clearly defined or regulated. These institutions are often loosely connected through religious, political, or regional networks, not officially part of the government.

• The HDP's Challenge: The Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP), representing Kurdish interests, challenged Erdoğan's consolidation of power by highlighting the constitutional violations and the threat to minority rights. The HDP's leader, Selahattin Demirtaş, used rhetoric to isolate Erdoğan and question his legitimacy.

• 2015 Election Outcomes: The 2015 elections led to a hung parliament, and the HDP's refusal to form a coalition with the MHP (which viewed the HDP as an extension of the PKK) prevented any real political compromise. The document suggests that Erdoğan's dominance was reinforced through this outcome.

• Implications of the New System: The "New Turkey" is characterized by the supremacy of the political sphere over the legal one. This system, while resembling Western models in rhetoric, is deeply influenced by Erdoğan's personal authority and the lack of a robust constitutional framework.

Key Institutions and Their Roles

• Presidency: Central to the new system, the presidency has evolved into a powerful, centralized authority.
• Prime Ministry: Historically the main executive body, it has been increasingly overshadowed by the presidency.
• Judiciary and Legislature: These branches are seen as peripheral in the new system, with the presidency acting as the central point of authority.
• Military and Civil Society: The military's influence has waned, but civil society and political networks have taken on more significant roles in governance.

Conclusion

The document illustrates how Turkey's political system has undergone a dramatic transformation, moving from a parliamentary model with checks and balances to a presidential system that centralizes power in the hands of the executive. This shift reflects a broader trend of political centralization, where the president is seen as the ultimate authority, and the legal and constitutional framework is increasingly subordinated to political will. The new system, while lacking the clarity and structure of the old, is perceived as a necessary evolution toward a more assertive and independent national identity.