HALK TARAFINDAN SEÇİLEN DEVLET BAŞKANLARININ YÜRÜTME YETKİLERİ (KARŞILAŞTIRMALI ANAYASA İNCELEMESİ)

Tam metin için bakınız

Kongre sunumu video/görsel için bakınız

Özet Devletin yasama, yürütme ve yargıdan oluşan üç fonksiyonu bulunmaktadır. Hiç kuşkusuz devlet yönetiminin ulusal ve uluslararası zeminde en aktif öğesini yürütme organı oluşturmaktadır. Çağdaş devlet yapılanmalarında devlet başkanları ya halk tarafından seçilmekte ya da parlamentolar bu yetkiyi kullanmaktadır. Halk tarafından seçilen devlet başkanlarının yürütmeye ilişkin yetkilerinin, parlamentolar tarafından seçilen devlet başkanlarına nazaran daha geniş olduğu görülmektedir. Türkiye Cumhuriyeti kuruluşundan itibaren meclis tarafından seçilen devlet başkanı modelini uygulanmaktayken, 2014 yılında “çok adaylı halk tarafından seçilen devlet başkanı modeline” geçiş yapmıştır. Devlet başkanlarının halk tarafından seçilmeleri beraberinde hukuki ve de facto olarak daha geniş görev, yetki, sorumluluklar getirmektedir. Dünya genelinde uygulanmakta olan benzer modellerin incelenmesi, Türkiye’nin devlet başkanının karşılaştırmalı anayasa hukukuna göre konumunun belirlenmesi açısından faydalı olacaktır. Başkanlık ve Yarı Başkanlık hükümet sistemlerinin ayırt edici özelliği devlet başkanlarının halk tarafından seçilmesidir. Dünya genelinde oldukça fazla uygulaması olan bahse konu modelin tüm örneklerinin incelenmesi çalışmanın kapsamını aşacaktır. Konunun yeterli seviyede anlaşılması için emsal modeller olarak belirginleşen ABD, Fransa ve Rusya Devlet Başkanlarının görev ve yetkilerinin incelenmesi karşılaştırmalı anayasa incelememizin çerçevesini oluşturmaktadır. Anılan devletlerin anayasalarında mevcut olan devlet başkanına daha geniş çerçevede yürütme organına ilişkin düzenlemeler temel inceleme konumuzu oluşturmaktadır. Karşılaştırmalı olarak devlet başkanlarının seçilme süre ve yöntemleri, tarafsızlıkları, görev ve yetkileri, hukuki sorumlulukları ele alınarak modellerin olumlu özellikleri belirlenmeye çalışılacaktır. Yapılan tespitler ışığında Türkiye için anayasal yönden bir değerlendirme yapılması araştırmanın nihai amacını oluşturmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler: ABD-Rusya-Fransa Devlet Başkanları, Halk Tarafından Seçilen Başkan, Yürütme Organı, Yürütme Sistemi Sorunları.

Extended Abstract
Institutions that determine and implement national and international politics of States are generally executive organs. In government system, legislative, executive and judicial powers are determined according to the forms of their relationship with each other. According to the classical classification, the government models are divided into presidential, semi-presidential and parliamentary systems. The common feature of the three systems is that they rely on separation of powers and allow the implementation of contemporary democracy. The strong and influential position of the head of State supported by the historical tradition have shaped the presidential and semi-presidential government systems that are now considered as contemporary government models.
In the parliamentary system, the parliaments elect the head of State. In this system, the prime minister and cabinet constitute the effective element of the executive body. In the presidential and semi-presidential models in which the head of state is elected by the public, the presidents constitute the effective element of the executive body. In these systems, the realization of democratic state management can be achieved by limiting the position allocated to execution with the principles of separation of powers. The constitutional arrangements of the United States, France and Russia, which implement the popularly elected presidential model for a comparative evaluation of the executive system that Turkey started to implement since 2018, contain appropriate data.
France has experienced all government systems throughout her history. It is possible to see the classical features of the semi-presidential government system that is currently being implemented in the French executive system. According to the system adopted by the Constitution of 1958, the effectiveness and powers of the president were increased, and the powers of the prime minister and his cabinet were reduced. The government has significant constitutional powers. There is no doubt that when the president and the prime minister are in the same political trend, the system will operate smoothly. But in opposite case “période de cohabitation” would be faced. The Russian Federation prefers to be governed by a strong executive power. If there is not a strong and centralised power, the “great state” will be shattered which is the basic fear. The Constitution of the Russian Federation clearly adopted the principle of separation of powers. Both the president and prime minister have important constitutional executive powers. If the president and the government come from the same political trend, the state administration will be operated regularly without any problems.
United States executive system has no prime minister. The President is the sole sovereign power of both the state and the executive. The second Article of the US Constitution regulates the president’s election and authority in four chapters. Powers between the President and the Parliament are separated by harsh lines in the context of separation of forces is a feature that makes the US model unique and precedent.
In Turkey, according to the constitutional regulations adopted with the referendum in 2017 and implemented in 2018, the president is the head of the executive. In the new system, the powers of the president increased, prime minister’s office was cancelled. Therefore, the president has the authority to appoint the proxy and ministers who are responsible to the president during their term of office not to parliament. In addition, the president’s penal responsibility is similar to the US-type government system. In contrast, both parliament and the president’s renewal of elections, such as the right to dissolve the other, resembles those of the parliamentary government system. Turkey’s new system is not compatible with classic governmental models, it has become a “different distinctive” government system because it contains various elements from all systems.
In some points, differences are evident: Presidents of the United States, Russia and France may be elected for a maximum of two consecutive terms. The election period of the President has determined in TR Constitution as 5 years and can be selected twice as normally. However, if the parliament decides to renew the elections in the second term of the president, then the president may be a candidate for further elections (Article 116). This arrangement allows a person to become president for three terms.
The president of TR can become a political party member and even be actively the chairman of the political party. In general world practice, the person who is the proxy of the president is elected by public or parliamentary elections. In the TR presidential model, the president himself identifies and appoints the proxy of presidency. It is observed that, control of the state of emergency powers are legally impossible, the control of the criminal responsibility is de facto difficult, the authority of the assignment is excluded from legislative supervision, the authority to renew the assembly and the renewal of the elections is not bound to any legal condition.
Presidents elected by public, offers stable administrations because there are definite and certain time elections. On the other hand, not allowing the coalition systems, not being able to change the head of State who lost popular support due to a fixed period of time constitute criticizing points. In addition, a candidate can be elected as the head of state even with one vote difference. Sometimes vast majority of voters are not represented in the executive body.
Who represents the will of people, called “dual legitimacy” is a problem between legislative body and presidents in such systems. The classic double legitimacy problem between the president and parliament, prime ministers is added in semi presidential systems.
In the contemporary democratic state structure, the separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary should be regarded as the fundamental value. While the executive body is being configured, it is necessary to avoid the problems created by the methodologies of the presidents elected by the people, especially the double legitimacy problem. For this purpose, the creation of a legislative body fed from the sole source of legitimacy and the structure of the executive body, which receives power/authority from it, become evident as the proposal of the study.

Keywords: Presidents of US-Russia-France, Popularly Elected President, Executive Body, Execution System Issues.

admin hakkında 37 makale
Hukuk Dersleri Öğretim Üyesi