As expected, the Turkish parliament has refused the outgoing president’s veto of its amendment that would adopt, among other things, direct presidential elections. Thanks to BBC Monitoring* and the Lexis-Nexis subscription, I have finally seen an overview of some of the details of the amendments.
First of all, the president would be elected by two-round majority, and would be eligible for two five-year terms. (Currently the president is elected by parliament for a single seven-year term.) The first round of voting in Turkey’s first direct presidential election would be held within 40 days of the promulgation of the amendments.
The term of parliament would be cut from five years to four. Another article of the amendment package would reduce the quorum required for parliament to conduct business to 184 deputies (one third of the membership).
The president can still delay this amendment further by calling a referendum (which would be quite likely to pass). He cannot veto the package again or propose further amendments to it.
If there is a referendum, the package of items referred to above will be voted as a single question, according to the BBC Monitoring article. However, there is yet another twist regarding timing:
If the law reduces the lead time for a referendum from 120 days to 40 days as has been earlier disclosed, then the referendum cannot be held in time before the 22 July elections. The lead time for a referendum must be reduced to less than 40 days in order to hold the referendum before 22 July. If the 120-day period cannot be reduced but the constitutional amendments go into effect in the meantime, a referendum can be held only in October 2007 [sentence as published]. If the lead time amendment cannot be implemented by 22 July, then the constitutional amendments may become void. When a new parliament is elected, bills that could not be put into effect by the previous parliament are considered void. [bracketed text before this was in the original BBC item.]
There was yet another article to amend the constitution that passed in May, separate from the larger package. This article would make the election of independents candidates more difficult. It is complex, so I will quote a passage from BB Monitoring:
In response to the decision by the DTP [Democratic Society Party] to run in the elections using independent candidates, the AKP withdrew its measure to implement in the coming elections the amendment reducing the minimum age for election to parliament to 25 and, with the support of the CHP, enacted a constitutional amendment that will place the names of the independent candidates on the single composite ballot slip. Although the number of votes for this amendment was much higher than the 330-367 interval that would require a referendum, the president can still veto it and require that it go to a referendum.
DEHAP [Democratic People's Party] won 1,933,000 votes in November 2002 but still could not clear the national electoral threshold. As a result, the AKP and CHP were able to capture nearly 40 “extra” seats in the Assembly. The AKP and CHP think that it would be easier for independent candidates to get elected if voters are presented with individual ballot slips that have only their names on them and that this “opens the way to manipulation” in the East and the Southeast. By including the names of the independent candidates in a lengthy ballot slip, the AKP and CHP hope to stop the DTP [from gaining substantial number of seats in the Assembly].
Several of these provisions concern question that either I posted previously or others have raised in the comments. (Click on “Turkey” above to see the previous discussions.)
While parliamentary elections are set for 22 July, it looks unlikely that the first round of presidential elections could be the same date, as the ruling AK party had hoped. The veto by the current “mostly ceremonial” president may make a difference in the outcome of this showdown over the selection of a president and the extent of authority the AKP ultimately will have.
A concluding question for which I do not have the answer: Can the AKP, which won its parliamentary majority on only a third of the votes (thanks to the 10% threshold and opposition fragmentation), win a nationwide majority for its presidential candidate? Apparently they think so.
* BBC Monitoring Europe – Political, 13 May, 2007.
Interesting–and I should have known to check over here to see if you dug up the details as yet.
Given the provisions in question, and the likelihood that the referendum would pass–and I agree that with the majority requirement for president that it would–one wonders if the President will simply accept the package rather than deal with the referendum.
Seed planted by Steven Taylor — 31 May 2007 @ 18:12
Turkish Showdown Over Electoral Change
There is not indication as to which route he will go, but one would think it would be the referendum as if he really does want to stop it, that may be the only way.
Scion grafted by PoliBlog — 31 May 2007 @ 18:22
I still cannot understand why every country that directly elects it’s President uses a 2 round system.
Why is Ireland and Sri Lanka the only countries to use a ranked preference system that is done in one round?
The Irish seriously needs to advertise it’s electoral system (STV) and it’s electoral method of electing it’s President (Alternative Vote) to more countries.
Is it because of a lack of knowledge about preferential voting or they are simply familiarity with the 2 round system?
Isn’t it less costly to have an election that is conducted in one round than two?
About Turkey system of PR, it is designed to disenfranchised the Kurdish minority. It is obvious on that part. I think the 10% national threshold should be kept, but at least allow any party that wins more than 15% in a district representation.
Is Turkey system of PR a one tier (regional tier) or two tier system (with regional tier, and a national tier)?
Is it an open, closed, or free party list system?
Seed planted by Suaprazzodi — 31 May 2007 @ 22:12
The Irish presidency is so sadly under-advertised that the Constitutional Convention in 1999 could not get its head around the notion that an Australian president would almost inevitably be elected by IRV. Anti-republicans whipped themselves into a lather over minority presidents and deadlocked elections that were never going to happen.
Seed planted by Alan — 01 June 2007 @ 12:39
While 2-round majority is by far the most common rule for direct presidencies, there are many plurality systems–though very few outside of the Americas (only S. Korea, Taiwan, Philippines, and the Palestinian Authority; that’s off the top of my head and I am probably forgetting an African case or two).
But indeed the idea of one round but ranked-preference voting is very rare and perhaps deserves to be less so. Note that (as discussed earlier in the “electing presidents” block at F&V) Ireland and Sri Lanka actually use quite different systems. Only Ireland is actually alternative vote (STV). Sri Lanka eliminates all but the top two and then transfers preferences. That is the more literal “instant runoff” but it is one of the worst systems (maybe even worse than plurality) at preventing the election of a Condorcet loser (whereas either alternative vote or two-round majority should almost guarantee a Condorcet loser will lose).
Also note that two-round systems come in many flavors–not just majority, but also variations on qualified plurality and distribution requirements (also discussed here in the “electing presidents” block; just click on those words at the top of the main planting).
(Also, Suaprazzodi’s question on Turkish lists is addressed in earlier plantings in the “Turkey” block.)
Seed planted by MSS — 01 June 2007 @ 13:30
I’m delighted to report that India is another STV presidency although the voting is by an electoral college of state and federal MPs.
Seed planted by Alan — 13 June 2007 @ 18:36
Few notes on the Turkish constitutional amendments and the referendum:
1. Since the parliament could not elect a president within 30 days and four rounds as required by the constitution, its term has been cut short and an early parliamentary election was held. meanwhile the package of constitutional reform which requires popular vote for the election of the president is submitted to the referandum which is going to be held in october.
2.The new parliament has been elected now (AKP has 341, CHP 112, MHP 71 DTP has 23 seats) and still has to elect the new president under the current constitution with a month after it is convened (after the bureau of assembly is elected). the current parliament is going to be convene next week and will start the rounds to elect the 11th president.
3. If the turkish voters accepts the amendments in october the new law will take effect for the next presidential election not for the current one unless the parliament fails to elects one again. It seems very likely that Abdullah Gül will be elected by the parliament (for 7 years) as the 11th president of the republic.
4. one little note on why the new law prefers two round system for
presidential elections. Although it is true that turkish politicians and many academics are not familiar with the systems like the Irish’, this (two round) system has one particular feature that makes it atractive. It gives political parties and electors a chance to unite their votes (bargain) in the second round. It is important to see the full picture first and if necessary decide later for the second choices.
Seed planted by Sule Ozsoy — 25 July 2007 @ 11:39
Turkish presidential election update & correction
Turkey’s newly elected parliament must still attempt to elect a president, because the term of the current president has expired and thus it is not constitutionally permissible to wait for possible voter approval in October of the referendum on direct presidential elections.
Scion grafted by Fruits and Votes — 25 July 2007 @ 14:21