Going after the tail of Saudi Arabia

Turkey’s Foreign Ministry said it was concerned by attacks on Saudi Arabian diplomatic missions in Iran.
Indeed, everyone should be concerned about such incidents.

Every entity that calls itself “a state” is committed of protecting the security of the diplomats in its country and the buildings they work. It is unacceptable that such attacks have been permissible.

But the executions in Saudi Arabia are nowhere to be found the Foreign Ministry’s statement.

Among the executed is a religious cleric who has rejected violence and has been pursuing his struggle on the political sphere.

Is it possible that a ministry of a government that has been proud of “standing by the side of the oppressed” missed that point?

And that, despite the statement of Deputy Prime Minister Numan Kurtulmuş, which said execution of political death sentences will not contribute to the region’s peace.

Turkey should have come up with a strong commitment to prove that it remained neutral in the contention between Iran and Saudi Arabia.

But that has not been the case. Let’s hope that this stance will not result in sliding into new adventures following the tail of Saudi Arabia.

The reputation of the parliament

The administration of the parliament has made a “reputation operation” by removing the prices off the menu of the parliament restaurant.

This way, only deputies will know how much it will cost when they buy lunch for their guests.

Apparently, deputies are resentful about the comments made about the restaurant’s low prices. They think being known for having the cheapest restaurant in the world is harming the reputation of the parliament.

Deputies receive thousands of visitors; low prices are necessary in the parliament. There is nothing to be ashamed of.

The way to protect reputation is by never forgetting that they are the representatives of the people that elected them, by participating in all legislative activities, by fulfilling their tasks in commissions and by refraining from voting according to their leader even when they don’t have any idea about the subject.

Let’s see what you have in mind

Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu talked about the presidential system in his address to his party in parliament.
 
“We think the presidential system is the most correct one for Turkey. The opposition parties reject debates on the presidential system from their onset. We need to talk by setting aside taboos. No one should reject a proposal from the onset. What makes a system authoritarian is the implementation.”

Who can object to the prime minister’s statement?

Everything should be debated; it is senseless to reject without discussing and acting with prejudice.
And indeed, taboos need to be put aside.

But the problem is the fact that there is no proposal at the table.

They say, “Let’s bring the presidential system.”

But we have no idea how this system work; how the checks and balances mechanism will be established; how a whole state structure will change in accordance to this system.

We know two things:

1. The Justice and Development Party (AKP) wants a presidential system.

2. The “Turkish style” presidential system that they proposed in the past to the parliamentary commission won’t bring democracy but will slide Turkey into an authoritarian regime ruled by one man.

Therefore, they should put aside this demagogic approach and share their proposal with the public so we know what to discuss.