Handicaps for defending the presidential system
One: It is argued the parliamentary system generates instability but as a matter of fact, there is an unprecedented harmony in the administration of the country at this moment.
Two: They say the parliamentary system brings coalitions, but, let alone a single coalition, there is not even the possibility of it.
Three: It is argued that if he is the president in a presidential system, he would make decisions alone and the country would take wing, but already there is a de facto president and he makes decisions himself.
Four: They are saying Turkey needs a new system, but those who are saying this take full advantage of the defects of the current system and are content.
Five: It is argued that, for a strong parliament, the presidential system is a must, but those who say this are the ones who contribute the most to weaken the strength of the parliament.
Six: They say the presidential system would bring a two-party system, but those who say this cannot answer the question, “Then what will happen to the MHP (Nationalist Movement Party) and the HDP (Peoples’ Democratic Party)? Will they just disappear?”
Seven: They argue that in the presidential system the checks and balances mechanisms would work much better than today, but the person who wants 400 deputies does not want any control.
Negotiating with the terrorists
President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, in his speech the other day, targeted the head of the Istanbul Bar Association, Ümit Kocasakal. He said, “Hey, the head of the Bar Association! You also negotiated with the terrorists. What result did you achieve? You know, you are respected and your words are listened to… Why could you not obtain a result? Also, know that you do not represent all of the lawyers.”
The terrorists, the ones that took the prosecutor hostage, had also wanted to speak to Sezgin Tanrıkulu, the deputy chair of the main opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP). For various reasons, Tanrıkulu did not talk to them.
We should congratulate Sezgin Tanrıkulu. That was a wise decision. If he had been a negotiator, there was no guarantee that he would not have been subject an accusation such as, “Hey, Sezgin Tanrıkulu of the CHP. These terrorists wanted to speak with you also. Why did they want to speak with you? What connection do you have with them? Were they going to listen to you? You are a person who negotiates with terrorists, know that...”
Killing Berkin for the second time
Well-known lawyer Turgut Kazan gave this message to the terrorists while they were still holding Prosecutor Mehmet Selim Kiraz hostage: “If I, as Turgut Kazan, was the prosecutor of the Berkin Elvan file, I would have done exactly the same as what prosecutor Mehmet Selim Kiraz, who you are holding hostage now, has done. Nothing more and nothing less.”
The terrorists shrugged off this very strong, very clear and very open guarantee from a name such as Turgut Kazan, whose sensitivity to the topic of Berkin Elvan is undebatable. And they martyred the courageous and conscientious Prosecutor Mehmet Selim Kiraz, who was about to expose Berkin’s killers.
I do not believe in conspiracies but I am becoming more and more confident of this: The real aim of these terrorists was to contribute to obfuscating Berkin’s file.
Does anyone understand?
The rector of Istanbul University, Yunus Söylet, resigned from his position to become a candidate from the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) in the upcoming general elections.
However, he was not able to enter any of the lists, while even individuals such as Savcı Sayan were able to secure a place.
What happened as a result?
He lost his right to manage Turkey’s biggest university. He lost his chance to become a deputy. He contributed to the development where, after the rector elections in the university, the person who came second was appointed to the post instead of the winner, drawing much reaction.
It is difficult to comprehend how such a well-equipped and high caliber person can be so shortsighted…