Discussing the system

Daily Hürriyet recently published the views of presidential adviser Mehmet Uçum in which he defended the new system.

Uçum is a lawyer who is very knowledgeable on issues of political systems.

Previously, the analysis of Hürriyet's Bülent Sarıoğlu was published. You cannot see this kind of objectivity in the pro-government media.

Leaving aside different viewpoints, they don't even publish the news about the opposition.

Yet in our age, the long-term success of a system depends on the fact that it is digested thoroughly in debates that attract wide participation and are endorsed by a crushing majority, as was said by Prime Minister Binali Yıldırım.

The constitution of Charles De Gaulle, which changed the system in France in 1958, was accepted by 80 percent, for instance.

Let's look at what the PM said while arguing for a "yes" in the referendum: "From 1923 to our days, 65 governments were formed in 93 years; the average was not even 1.5 years. In the United States in 228 years, there have been 45 presidents."

This is how it looks from the perspective of the government.

Yıldırım's statement is of course true, but it has some shortcomings that could be misleading.

Instability, coups and stalemates are not only about the system. It is also about the level of development. In fact, there have been several coups in Latin American, Asian and African countries which are governed by the presidential system.

Obviously, the United States is very stable because the American system is based on liberal culture, lax party structure and a checks and balance mechanism which is highly efficient at the constitutional level. That's why 45 presidents have changed in the course of 228 years without...