A puppet prime minister

We are very kind as a society. None of us are naming it, but we are all getting prepared for a “puppet prime minister.”

* * *
The primary actors have made their stance very clear. Prime Minister Erdoğan said indirectly, “I want a puppet prime minister.”

* *  *
The president who is expected to change places with him indirectly says, “I won’t be a puppet prime minister.”

While not saying it directly, we all know one of these two individuals will definitely be the president; and the other definitely prime minister.

How would that happen?

* * *
No one is asking us any questions.

What exactly we will choose?

A head of state or a president?

* * *
There is no need to ask us in fact...

The person we will choose is a president and the limits to his/her authority are clearly defined in the Constitution.

* * *
Yet, one of the candidates say, “I don’t care what is written there; I will redefine the authority.” What will happen then?

* * *  
I do not have the slightest doubt: President Abdullah Gül will not stay outside of this struggle. Last time, he went to Çankaya Palace with his own efforts and will. If Erdoğan will write the new unofficial Constitution of Çankaya, Gül will write the new Constitution of the seat Erdoğan will leave behind.

* * *
Let’s come to the real issue...

I am thinking of another possibility.

What will happen if Erdoğan decides to remain prime minister?

Then who will define the authorities of the president?

When the prime minister said the other day that the nation will elect its “had of state,” not only did he imply he wants a puppet prime minister, but he also wrote an unnamed arbitrary presidential Constitution...

* * *
In this situation, if Gül remains president and starts using those authorities, what will happen?

Will Erdoğan accept wearing the clothes of the puppet prime minister, which he designed himself?

* * *
Or else is he trying to say both to us and his party “I am the king of this world; power will be wherever I will stay?”

* * *
Let me say it in advance, this much power and this much arbitration won’t bring any happiness to anyone. One-man rule is a highly ambitious business. One needs to know the limits.

* * *
That’s why I’d like to summarize my hope and expectations as a citizen with this simple sentence:
Two powerful men are better than one man and too much power.

But the best is two less powerful strong men whose power has been defined by laws and the Constitution, balanced by the other powers of democracy.

This is to the benefit of all of us.

This is the only thing that could save the politician that has been corrupted by power.