Location: The Presidential Complex.

President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is speaking to a group of parliamentarians.

“You were elected by the public. You deserve the presidential system,” says one parliamentarian.

The president feels the need to make a correction. He says, “It won’t work if we want it for personal or individual reasons” and adds, “It is a necessity for Turkey.”

This comprises the essence of the debate regarding a presidential system.

We have registered no progress because ever since the time of Turgut Özal we have debated the presidential system on the basis of individual personalities.

Özal wanted an American-style presidency. Süleyman Demirel, who opposed a presidential system saying Özal was seeking a dictatorship, was the first to leap to the defense of a presidential system after becoming president.

President Erdoğan, however, has defended a presidential system since his days as mayor. He maintains a consistent stance, including his suggestion to the Constitution Reconciliation Commission.

Additionally, the parliamentary system witnessed its golden age during Erdoğan’s tenure. Prior to that we were governed by a system of tutelage where every 10 years a military-led coup was carried out, prime ministers were sent to the gallows, the constitution was prepared by putschist soldiers, parliament wasn’t allowed to even elect a president, and the military had the final say on all fundamental issues where Islamists and Kurds bore the brunt of mistreatment.

What existed during the tenure of those who now create a ruckus in defense of a parliamentary system cannot be termed a parliamentary system. It was a semi martial Republic. If there is someone with the right to talk of the parliamentary system, it is Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. The parliamentary system witnessed its golden age during the AK Parti (Justice and Development Party) period. Today it is not who the military wants, but who the nation elects that becomes president.

First we need to define the system through which we are currently run. It is not possible to call it a parliamentary system. We have a Presidency, created by Kenan Evren, which has been bestowed with authority but no responsibilities. I don’t think President Erdoğan is defending a presidential system just due to the authority aspect. Because according to the constitution, the president currently has a lot of authority and no responsibilities to boot.

We have had 62 governments during our 92-year-old Republic. There was single-party rule for 27 of those years. Even with the inclusion of the political stability created by the 10-year tenure of the Democrat Party and the 13-year AK Parti leadership, the average lifespan of governments in Turkey is one year, four months and eight days.

The United States and Europe had periods of stability that allowed them to develop. What kind of development or goal -- such as a solution to the Kurdish problem and democratization -- can be achieved with a government that has a lifespan of one year?

I would like to share two more instances.

The 1970-80 period. In the 10 years between two coups, 13 governments, which on average lasted seven months, were formed. In the period from 1990 to 2000 we had 11 coalition governments with an average lifespan of nine months.

Demirel, who was president back then, had complained about the situation, saying, “I struggle to even remember the names of ministers. I just say ‘welcome minister.’”

The frequent coup d’états created the control mechanisms for military tutelage within the system and led to short-lived and weak governments, which let alone being incapable of tackling these mechanisms through democracy, could not run Turkey and left the national will confined in the shadows of institutions imposing tutelage.

Would it have been possible to dare initiate the resolution process, embark on a process of rolling back military tutelage in such a Turkey? The prime ministers who rolled up their sleeves to do this paid for it with their lives. Even mentioning the military required courage.

Prime Minister of the Republic of Turkey Mesut Yılmaz had to resort to pantomime because he couldn’t mention Çevik Bir’s (a high-ranking military official of the time) name. That was actually a mockery of the state of our democracy.

We have seen that the AK Parti, irrespective of its backing of a presidential system, can also successfully run Turkey with a parliamentary system.

Despite all the turmoil, the AK Parti managed to run Turkey both during the tenure of former president, Ahmet Necdet Sezer, and during the tenure of President Abdullah Gül, who came from its own ranks. The stability in the administration turned into votes and it emerged victorious at the ballot box in nine elections. Now a new period is underway.

The latest public opinion polls show the AK Parti’s expected vote ratio at 49 percent. But there is another thing as well. The possibility of that rising to 55 percent. This means that the Turkish nation approves of the President Erdoğan-Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu model.

If this synergy is reflected at the ballot box, it will mean an AK Parti victory in the 2015 elections as well.

Erdoğan is not a symbolic president. No president was actually just symbolic. Sezer looked at Çankaya as the regime’s last bastion. He vetoed government decrees. Weren’t changes made to the list of cabinet ministers during the tenure of Mr. Abdullah, despite him being one of the founders of the AK Parti?

Weren’t there occasions when the prime minister or ministers informed the president before passing laws? In any case, Erdoğan declared all this before he was elected president.

Notwithstanding, Davutoğlu too has proved he is not just a caretaker prime minister. He won over hearts in the nation through his industry, intellectual prowess, clean record and mastery of domestic politics.

Ever since Aug. 28, 2014, Davutoğlu too, alongside Erdoğan, holds a place in the nation’s affections.  

The AK Parti worked on its election strategy for 2015 over the weekend in Afyon. It looks like it will face the electorate with its request for political stability and a constitution promoting freedoms. The suggestion regarding a presidential system will be included within the request for a new constitution.

The prime minister needs to first emerge victorious from these elections if we want to introduce a presidential system. Davutoğlu has to be successful for us to attain the majority required in the 2015 elections that will enable us to change the constitution. How could we possibly change the constitution with an unsuccessful Davutoğlu? This is why we have to concentrate on the harmony between Erdoğan and Davutoğlu.

The channels of dialogue between them are open. They can meet frequently and discuss any problem. They sometimes hold meetings that are not made public. As long as the Erdoğan-Davutoğlu harmony continues, we will change the constitution and introduce the presidential system as well.

Suffice that unlike the archers during the Battle of Uhud we don’t get distracted by the spoils and abandon our positions.

Now is the time to trample our cravings underfoot.