Effectiveness, not names, matters

As often it is said "size does not matter;" indeed the name of the governance system does not matter either. What matters is the name of the governance system of a country or functionality, accountability, effectiveness of governance in that country. Ever since Turkey moved to civilian governance after the 1980 coup that devastated the political culture and enabled wild opportunism to crawl in, the country has been discussing a possible presidential system.
Interestingly enough, those in opposition were often very critical of a presidential governance only for the very same politicians, once they captured power, often became diehard defenders of a change in the governance system of the country. Turgut Özal and Süleyman Demirel could be considered as two examples of this transformation, as they went from being strong supporters of a parliamentary governance model to a presidential one once they acquired the highest post in the country.

If democracy is "governance by the people for the people" perhaps it is wiser not to categorically be supportive or rejectionist of any model, and instead focus on a search to find which model fits well for our people. To be honest and frank, can anyone comfortably say that the parliamentary governance model has smoothly been working since its inception in the republican period?

Thanks to the crooked legislation on political parties and worsening election laws in the country, party leaders have become some sort of feudal lords in the country. How could a parliamentarian, whose political prospects were, is and will be at the discretion of his party's leader, perform his fundamental duty on behalf of his constituents?

We have to accept that parliamentary democracy did not work in Turkey, particularly after...