Style of Politics

"Presidentialism has important consequences for the whole style of politics. There are enormous varieties of how much power presidents have in the different constitutions. These differences are all very important, but I think that the important thing is that in presidentialism the whole style of politics is different . Now you might say that presidentalism can and has worked. In fact, presidentialism has worked in the United States, but the United States is a very unique political system. It has worked in Costa Rica and, with some qualifications, in Venezuela. One of the characteristics that makes it work in these countries is the two - party system. There is a high correlation between stability and instability of presidential systems and the two - party system. But two - party systems are not very likely to be generated by societies with very complex social structures and with ethnic, cultural and ideologic cleavages. There is no general tendency towards two - party systems but more multi - party systems. " 

(Juan LINZ, Professor of Political and Social Science, Yale University, New Haven, U.S.A. Istanbul, 1992: UNIDEM)   

Recent debates on Turkey's politics is how will the politics take shape as recently AKP and MHP seems to be in cooperation at least in the discourse and CHP being comfortable at its own and also HDP only political representation of the Kurdish political existence left aside with its pros and cons in means of contribution to the democracy, it's a political scene formed within political parties formed only by the organisation of values, dogmas more than policies in means of political movement.

There are of course policy side of each party but policy is very much identified with the political (or governmental) power maybe to gain attention of the both public and also other notions that are contributing parts of the electoral process, yet the supply of policy of the political parties are not shaped by the components of a modern democracy such as individual rights and freedoms but many other notions are in this dynamic yet the only intersection is populist discourse to maintain a democratic policy(!) getting together the public vote and the requisites of the formation of a political party.

There is a fundamental difference in the way the legitimacy of the elected president and of the elected congress are perceived. This was already well described in this text from 1852:  

"While the votes of France are split up among the seven hundred and fifty members of the National Assembly, they are here, on the contrary, concentrated on a single individual. While each separate representative of the people represents only this or that party, this or that town, this or that bridgehead, or even only the mere necessity of electing some one of the seven hundred and fifty, in which neither the cause nor the man if closely examined, he is the elect of the nation and the act of his election is the trump that the sovereign people plays once every four years. The elected National Assembly stands in a metaphysical relation, but the elected president in a personal relation, to the nation. The National Assembly, indeed, exhibits in its individual representatives the manifold aspects of the national spirit, but in the president this national spirit finds its incarnation. As against the Assembly, he possesses a sort of divine right; he is president by the grace of the people."  

This is a quotation from Karl Marx in his Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte. It shows that it is not a new phenomenon that presidentialism leads to populism and personalisation of politics. A lot has been said and written about the populism and personalisation of politics in Latin America. But it is not just a cultural characteristic, it is the result of the institutions. Presidentialism fosters that kind of leadership. 

(Juan LINZ, Professor of Political and Social Science, Yale University, New Haven, U.S.A. Istanbul, 1992: UNIDEM) 

Yet I find each leader of the political parties in Turkey quite closer to the presidentialism but the political climate as well may also have allowance to this...

By acclaimed good political scientists here are some further readings:
From Semi-Democracy to Full Autocracy: 'Statist Communalism' in Turkey - Nov 12 2017 

A dead crowd: statist communalism, autocracy and resistance - Nov 21 2017 

Umut Özkırımlı - AhvalNews

One more push, republicans, if you want to be social democrats! Jan 06 2018 

Yahya Madra - AhvalNews 

*

Populus Latin equivalent of the Greek demos (δήμος) is actually quite important fact for political historians and scientists: yet should give some clues about the style of politics in different traditions. 

Style of politics, when confused has impact on, first, journalists but also calls for a reevaluation on the profession for them as well in confusing periods. If the journalists can not endure it, for which I have observed in Turkey, than the public also begin to withdraw from the politics as populus but leave the decision all to the elections as demos, maybe.

Populism is deriving from Latin Populus, may be because in the Roman Empire, policy in the Senate could be shaped and made run by Rhetorics given by the representatives, on which I haven't enough study but those rhetorics were discourses based on a certain tradition. 

I have always found the Greek demos closer to the Indian civilization as classes separated but a mutual decision was obtained through participation, as I say it based on the traits I could find while trying to figure out nothing further, political history especially of those Roman Empire and Greek civilization is difficult to study, but those two styles were different in style but same in purpose, seemed to me.

It must not be forgotten, however, that a Constitution is a whole and that this "whole" must be coherent. Some of the options indicated are doubtless independent the one from the other. For example, a parliamentary system can be twinned with incomplete bicameralism or with monocameralism. But complete bicameralism (equality of the two Chambers) would imply that the Government could be ousted by one or other of the Chambers and this would increase the risk of government instability which militates against the smooth functioning of institutions. Similarly, the voting age can be higher than the age of majority if it is thought that more maturity is required for public affairs than for the decisions of private life. But it would be inconsistent to admit that one could participate in the management of public affairs at an age when one is not judged fit to manage one's own.  

In other words, the authors of a Constitution are not in the position of a reader who buys books which might differ greatly from each other and be of heterogeneous types, but rather in that of an engineer building a machine who chooses parts which can work together. 

(George Vedel, Istanbul, 1992: UNIDEM)

*

I have seen the exposition on Charles II in London. It was an era of restoration succeeding political disrupt in the Monarchy, parliament and country, Charles II maintained a transformation through I would say peaceful means. The most important lesson maybe I would find how Charles II found a way for a restoration by utilizing the arts, but also it was a discovery of an instrument for the shaping of a mutual political will as a Monarch as well as a leader of a commonwealth (republic), during a political uncertainty, not to shape it himself but to construct a base for this.

Today, a republic and a weak and a torn democracy and presidential style politicians, one of the few means we can find for such is journalism. I would wish it would be the arts, literature, society but these are not really established in Turkey, I humbly think.

*

"78. Attaching formal rights to the opposition as such is first and foremost a concept applicable in Westminster Style parliaments, based on first-past-the-post electoral rules, which promotes a system with only two major parliamentary factions – the governing party and the “opposition”. In the British tradition this is sometimes emphasized by referring to the main parliamentary opposition faction with a capital “O”, and even as “The loyal Opposition”, or “Her Majesty’s Opposition”. In the UK Parliament there are a number of conventions and provisions on procedure based on the concept of the “opposition”., for example, the right of the leader of the opposition to a weekly period of questioning of the Prime Minister and a convention that the opposition members chair certain committees of the House."

(...)

"171. The existence of the Venice Commission is based on the idea that democracy can and should be promoted and protected “through law”. Legal recognition of certain parliamentary opposition and minority rights is a core issue in this regard. At the same time, the most important element for ensuring good parliamentary democracy is a tolerant and mature political tradition and culture, under which the governing faction does not abuse its power in order to suppress the opposition, and the opposition for its part engages actively and constructively in the political processes.  

CDL-AD(2010)025-e - Report on the role of the opposition in a democratic Parliament, adopted by the Venice Commission, at its 84th Plenary Session (Venice 15-16 October 2010)