Abstract
ABSTRACT Systems of government have been an issue that has occupied Turkish politics periodically since the transition to multi-party politics. Most political leaders from the right-wing spectrum have repeatedly advocated the transition to a presidential system, which they considered an instrument for a fast and powerful executive branch. Following the constitutional amendments in the 2017 referendum, parliamentarism was replaced with the presidential government system. However, this dispute has not been settled yet. The opposition parties claimed that the presidential system would lead to a more authoritarian political regime, while the leading political party saw the amendments as tools to prevent a coalition government and sustain political stability. Inspired by these opposing views, this study aims to reveal the authoritarian shift generated by the 2017 constitutional amendments. It focuses on empirical findings to transcend the rational interpretations of the amendments. It concludes that even the two-and-a-half-years experience of the Turkish presidential system offers tangible proof of further authoritarianism.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
