INTRODUCTION
The transition from the parliamentary system to the presidential government system in Turkey aims not only to put an end to the tutelary mentality and structures that sought to shape politics and society through non-democratic means, but also to eliminate the duality in the executive branch and to achieve stability in governance along with swift and effective execution. The presidential government system abolishes the use of executive power through a collective body, enabling it instead to be exercised by a person directly elected by the people and to remain in office uninterruptedly for five years.
In the new system, the president will, for five years, directly or indirectly determine, implement, and monitor all public policies concerning society—from security to foreign policy, from education to health. Within this framework, the president is expected to provide solutions to society’s chronic problems and to meet social demands and needs by ensuring that public services are delivered effectively and efficiently.
With the presidential government system, the abandonment of the dual executive structure, the abolition of the Prime Ministry, the redefinition of the structure, duties, and functions of the Council of Ministers and ministries—in other words, the restructuring of the governance system—has become necessary. This is because, in the presidential government system, the strong and sound organization of the executive branch constitutes one of the most fundamental conditions for rapid and effective execution. Indeed, when introducing the new governance model, President Erdoğan stated that they aimed to create a governance model that transforms dysfunctional structures or those with multiple institutions operating in the same sector, reduces the number of posts, makes swift and result-oriented decisions, and operates coordination and consultation mechanisms.
In this context, this perspective aims to analyze in general terms the new governance model planned to be implemented after the June 24 elections. Taking into account the experiences of countries governed by presidential systems, the steps taken to enhance the president’s capacity to formulate, implement, and evaluate public policy are evaluated, and the changes made at the ministry level are discussed.
THE PRESIDENTIAL ORGANIZATION IN THE NEW GOVERNANCE MODEL
With the transition to the presidential government system, the president, directly elected by the people, becomes the principal actor in matters related to the executive, such as the formulation and implementation of fundamental public policies, the provision of public services, and meeting societal needs. Accordingly, the president will coordinate among ministries, control the administrative organization, and appoint or dismiss senior public officials. The new position of the president in the executive branch entails numerous duties, powers, and responsibilities. For the president to fulfill all these duties and use his powers effectively and rationally, it is necessary in the new system to establish an organization consisting of numerous units and individuals directly affiliated with him.
In other words, the full transition to the presidential government system after the June 24 elections makes it essential to establish a presidential organization similar to the “Executive Office of the President” in the United States, but one that is “specific to Turkey,” taking into account Turkey’s political culture, administrative structure and traditions, the problems it faces, and its strategic priorities.
The presidential organization will encompass numerous units that carry out various political and administrative tasks. This organization will perform a wide range of duties—from assisting the president in formulating and implementing public policies to organizing his daily schedule and managing his press and public relations. In other words, the presidential organization will include “staff units” and “auxiliary units” that handle institutional and administrative tasks.
Staff units are significant in terms of enhancing the president’s capacity to formulate and implement public policy. In the new governance model, offices and councils stand out as staff units. Therefore, it is useful to examine these structures more closely.
Offices
Offices are among the most important structures within the organization directly affiliated with the president in countries governed by a presidential system. Looking at country practices, these offices generally collect the necessary data and information in their policy expertise areas to formulate public policies, produce field knowledge, develop suitable policy alternatives based on this knowledge, prepare policy and decision drafts, and report them to the president. In some cases, offices are also tasked with coordinating and evaluating implementation. Thus, offices are among the most important structures that contribute to enhancing the president’s capacity to formulate and implement public policy.
In the new governance model planned to be implemented in Turkey after the June 24 elections—similar to practices in countries with presidential systems—offices directly affiliated with the president have been established. These offices are the “Finance Office,” “Human Resources Office,” “Digital Transformation Office,” and “Investment Office.” President Erdoğan described these units in the new governance model as the president’s closest team, characterizing them as a “backyard” for developing policies and projects. It was emphasized that these units would manage projects in line with the president’s priorities without being hindered by bureaucracy and would have an executive function.
It is understood that in establishing specialized offices within the presidential organization, both Turkey’s 2023 targets and the problems of the Turkish public administration system and the requirements of public service have been taken into account.
Councils
Another instrument used to enhance the president’s capacity to formulate public policy in countries governed by a presidential system is councils. In country practices, these structures, which mainly undertake advisory functions, operate as full-fledged staff units. Councils may appear under different names or formats in different countries. For example, in the United States, these councils can be permanent or temporary and may consist solely of ministers or bureaucrats, or include more civilian stakeholders, particularly representatives of the relevant sectors.
Especially in the U.S. Executive Office of the President, there are many advisory councils and committees, both permanent and temporary. Presidents naturally have broad discretion to establish and dissolve temporary councils. For example, during President Obama’s term, in addition to permanent councils, advisory councils such as the “President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness,” the “President’s Management Advisory Board,” the “White House Council for Community Solutions,” the “President’s Advisory Commission on Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders,” and the “President’s Global Development Council” operated. In the Trump era, councils such as the “Council of Economic Advisers,” the “Council on Environmental Quality,” the “National Security Council,” the “Domestic Policy Council,” the “National Economic Council,” and the “President’s Intelligence Advisory Board” were included in the Presidential Office.
Advisory councils provide the president with independent information and advice in their relevant policy areas. Such councils, planned to be established in various sectors or policy areas, ensure the participation of relevant stakeholders in the public policy development process. They also allow for inter-institutional and inter-sectoral cooperation and coordination in solving multidimensional problems.
Similarly, in the newly designed governance model—parallel to practices in countries governed by a presidential system—councils have been established within the presidential organization. These councils are the “Local Government Policies Council,” the “Social Policies Council,” the “Health and Food Policies Council,” the “Culture and Arts Policies Council,” the “Legal Policies Council,” the “Security and Foreign Policies Council,” the “Economic Policies Council,” the “Education and Training Policies Council,” and the “Science, Technology, and Innovation Policies Council.” In the new model, these councils are expected to develop policy proposals, provide feedback to ministries, monitor executive activities in their fields, prepare progress reports, and increase stakeholder participation (such as NGOs, sector representatives, and academics) in policymaking, thereby activating collective wisdom. Additionally, through these councils, the aim is to reduce and streamline the currently scattered and numerous councils in the existing administrative structure, which number over sixty.
Directorates
In the new governance model, certain structures named “directorates” will also operate under the presidency. These are the “Chief of General Staff,” the “National Intelligence Directorate,” the “Defense Industry Directorate” (formerly an undersecretariat, now becoming a directorate in the new system), the “National Security Council,” the “Directorate of Religious Affairs,” the “State Supervisory Council,” the “Directorate of Communications,” and the “Directorate of Strategy and Budget.” Some of these institutions (such as the Defense Industry Undersecretariat and the State Supervisory Council) are already affiliated with the presidency. The Chief of General Staff, the National Intelligence Organization, and the Directorate of Religious Affairs are institutions currently affiliated with or reporting to the Prime Ministry; in the new system, due to the abolition of the Prime Ministry, they will be affiliated with the president, who will exercise executive power.
The Directorate of Communications and the Directorate of Strategy and Budget stand out as newly established directorates in the new governance model. The Directorate of Communications will coordinate all press, publication, and communication activities of the state and the presidency. The Directorate of Strategy and Budget, equivalent to the “Office of Management and Budget” in the U.S., will focus on the budget preparation and management process, now under the president’s authority.
MINISTRIES IN THE NEW GOVERNANCE MODEL
The new governance model also envisages certain changes regarding ministries. The first move concerning ministries has been to reduce their number. Furthermore, in the presidential government system, inevitable changes in the roles and functions of ministries can be expected. The main reason for this is that, in the new system, the president and his close team will generally be the primary policymakers, while ministries will function more as lower-level policy developers and, more predominantly, as implementers and supervisors.
In country practices, each state structures its ministries in line with its traditions and societal needs. The naming of ministries and the combination of service areas vary from country to country. In fact, in some countries, there are ministries whose creation or combination of functions may be difficult for an outsider to understand. For example, in France, state responsibilities for youth and sports are evaluated together with urban issues, resulting in the “Ministry of Urban Affairs, Youth, and Sport.” In Austria, there is the “Ministry of Agriculture, Environment, Forestry, and Water Management,” which brings together many related functions under one roof. In South Korea, there is the “Ministry of Government Legislation,” a ministry-level organization rarely seen in other countries. Such examples indicate that states determine ministry names for a wide range of reasons.
In Turkey, when evaluating ministries from a general perspective, it can be said that particularly during the AK Party governments, the number of ministries was reduced and brought to a more rational framework. In the 1990s coalition governments, the number of ministries increased significantly due to bargaining processes and began to burden the state. The AK Party reduced the number from 37 to 26. In the new governance model to be implemented after June 24, it is envisaged to further reduce the number of ministries, merge them to increase functionality and efficiency, resulting in 16 ministries. These ministries are: “Ministry of Justice,” “Ministry of Interior,” “Ministry of National Defense,” “Ministry of National Education,” “Ministry of Health,” “Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources,” “Ministry of Environment and Urbanization,” “Ministry of Culture and Tourism,” “Ministry of Youth and Sports,” “Ministry of Treasury and Finance,” “Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure,” “Ministry of Foreign Affairs,” “Ministry of Labor, Social Services, and Family,” “Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry,” and “Ministry of Industry and Technology.”
The most significant change at the ministerial level can be said to have been made in the economic field, aiming to simplify economic governance and centralize coordination. In the new governance model, the economic field will include the “Ministry of Trade,” the “Ministry of Treasury and Finance,” and the “Ministry of Industry and Technology.” In this context, it is envisaged that the current Undersecretariat of Treasury will be elevated to ministry status and merged with the Ministry of Finance, while the Ministry of Development will merge with the Ministry of Industry and Technology. Additionally, the Finance Office and the Investment Office, which will operate under the president, will support economic governance.
This move is understood to have been inspired by the “super ministry” practices in East Asian countries such as Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore, as well as close observation of countries like the U.S. and the U.K. In almost all of these rapidly industrializing and developing countries that achieved increases in production value, super ministries ensured intersectoral coordination during rapid development periods. The establishment of the Ministry of Treasury and Finance reflects this approach.
Moreover, in the new governance model, it is envisaged that the Ministry of EU Affairs will merge with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Family and Social Policies will merge with the Ministry of Labor and Social Security, and the Ministry of Forestry and Water Affairs will merge with the Ministry of Food, Agriculture, and Livestock. This will change the names of the Ministry of Labor and Social Security and the Ministry of Food, Agriculture, and Livestock. The names of the current Ministry of Transport, Maritime Affairs, and Communications and the Ministry of Science, Industry, and Technology will also be changed.
CONCLUSION
In the new governance model, the primary objective after the system change is to enhance the president’s capacity to formulate, implement, and evaluate public policy, placing the president at the center of politics and governance. For this reason, it has been envisaged to establish offices and councils within the structure directly affiliated with the president. This move resembles the practices of countries governed by presidential systems. However, in deciding which offices and councils to establish and defining their roles and functions, Turkey’s 2023 targets, the existing structure and problems of the Turkish public administration system, and new trends in public administration (such as ensuring inter-institutional and inter-sectoral coordination, and making consultation and negotiation processes functional) have been taken into account, resulting in a structure specific to Turkey.
Moreover, in line with developed country practices, efforts have been made to reduce the number of ministries. Changes at the ministerial level are most evident in economic governance, where it can be argued that the super ministry model has been adopted.
Of course, this structure of the new governance model, as reflected to the public, presents only the general framework and basic perspective of the reconstruction process that will begin rapidly after the June 24 elections. The new governance model is open to a wide range of institutional and functional changes—both in the structure directly affiliated with the president and in central administration and personnel systems.
