Turkish politics is stuck on the question of who should become the next president of Turkey. The more Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan avoids talking about it, the more aggressive the opposition becomes. It is not only the opposition parties that are stuck on the question. The Justice and Development Party (AK Party) cadres are in no better a position. No one dares speak about the new president. From the heavyweights to the ordinary supporters of the AK Party, they all say the same thing: if Erdoğan wants it, he should get it because he deserves it. No other presidential election in recent memory, with the exception of that of Turgut Özal, has been as hotly debated as this one.

 And there are striking similarities between Özal and Erdoğan. One should remember the newspaper headlines in October 1989. After serving as prime minister for two consecutive terms, Özal became president at the end of 1989. The opposition labeled him as regressive, religious, an enemy of the republic, etc. The camp against Özal -- which included Süleyman Demirel, Deniz Baykal, Bülent Ecevit and Necmettin Erbakan -- all rejected the legitimacy of Özal’s presidency. Some (guess who!) even vowed to topple Özal if he became the president. Turkish writers warned against a possible military coup. International observers feared years of instability.Özal did become president and none of the above happened. About 20 years later Erdoğan is holding the key to the new presidency with a similar opposition built up against him. Erdoğan as prime minister is ok. President Erdoğan is a big problem. Why? No one gives a reasonable answer except reiterating the old ideological salvos about the foundations of the republic, Atatürk’s legacy, tensions in the system, etc. The biggest anomaly in this whole debate is that it has also become a women’s issue. We are now a nation trying to “agree” on a president whose wife we would like -- I don’t mean her character, but her dress. The fact that Erdoğan’s wife covers her head is seen as a major obstacle to his presidency. Why? There is no law in the Constitution which bans the first lady from covering her hair. If it is argued that the president symbolizes the Turkish nation then one should remember the polls reporting that the vast majority of the Turkish people want the headscarf ban to be lifted. So the question of representation doesn’t arise. Furthermore if the wife of the next president turns out to be covering her head, it will be because of the headscarf ban, not in spite of it.So the issue is whether Erdoğan or someone else from the AK Party ranks will become the next president and what the opposition will do to prevent it. Yet the whole debate is misguided. The reason is that, while it focuses on names, it misses out on what is essential in the presidential system. What we should be discussing is not who should be the next president, but whether the president’s office should be so powerful in a parliamentary democracy. In a normative democracy the power of representation lies with parliament. People elect their representatives to parliament with the belief that those chosen will carry their issues to the national assembly. What is a president’s role in this process? Practically none, because he is not elected by popular vote, but rather selected by parliament. One may argue that the parliament elects the president and thus he is invested with some authority. But this is sloppy logic, because the parliament members vote for a president, not to give up their rights of representation, but rather to appoint a symbolic and honorary person to represent the country in a bipartisan fashion, above and beyond political divisions. The last two presidents have been anything but above politics. This is what the Turkish Constitutions of 1924 and 1961 have said about the president. Both constitutions devote a scant one paragraph to the rights and responsibilities of the president. By sharp contra