The votes in the ballot box are unpredictable

It’s better to be cautious while casting a vote. You leave your house in the morning, then head to a school. They give you an envelope, a ballot paper and an official seal for stamping your choice. Or, papers, which amount to yes or no.

Then you insert it into the ballot box…. Your envelope lies on top of the other envelopes.

A moment later, other votes will be placed over your vote. Opposite votes, some to Ahmet, some to Mehmet, some yes and some no. No matter what their color is, or, whether they are foes or friends, all the votes are lying peacefully in the transparent ballot box.

The vote for HDP is standing on top of the vote for MHP; both don’t care.

This is the condition of the votes as they enter the ballot box. Then, they are taken out.

In the ballot box, they are ineffective; they become active when they are taken out of the ballot box.

We’ve seen it. A referendum had been actualized in 2007. We answered the “Should the President be elected by the votes of the public?” with “yes”. We placed our votes in the ballot box.

As we repeatedly say nothing happened, we had reached 2014.

What happened?

In August, the President had been elected by the votes of the public. The “yes” votes in 2007 had shown its effect after 7 years.

The 2007 referendum was actually a regime change, Turkey had moved to the Presidential system in that period. (I had written this.)

The president, who is directly elected by the votes of the public, is different from the president, who is elected with indirect votes.

Maybe such thing is not written in the book, or, might not be found in the Constitution, laws or rules. After all, I’m not talking about rules. I’m talking about the law of the instrument.

How much can you interfere to the law of the instrument with the law and rule?

The effect of an indirect vote will also be indirect.

Ahmet Necdet Sezer wasn’t a “compatible” President, how much he managed to interfere with the Erdoğan Governments?

He didn’t confirm the assignments. Thus, Erdoğan assigned the bureaucrat, whom he was going to assign permanent, as a deputy. What difference did it make?

He sent the laws to the Constitutional Court or vetoed them, for how long?

In that era, the votes for Erdoğan were “direct”, while the votes for Sezer were “indirect”.

The direct vote’s effect was also direct.

We, as the citizens of this country, have chosen Erdoğan with direct votes with 52 percent: more than 21 million votes. Erdoğan outscored his closest rival with a 4.5 million difference.

As the necessity of the law of the instrument, these votes would eventually have an effect. So it did.

The distance between the President and execution had been shortened.

That period’s Minister of Justice, Mr. Bozdağ was the first name to talk about the “de facto Presidency”. This word was reflecting a political reality.

The law of the instrument is like this… There is also the law of AK Party.

Erdoğan is the natural leader of the AK Party movement.

Erdoğan is the founder of the party. Of course, he didn’t establish it alone. However, Erdoğan’s “charisma” was also one of the important factors that made it attractive to form a party from the point of the other founders.

The matter is not only composed of this.

Erdoğan’s leadership had also helped AK Party weather the storms.

What were those storms? The closure case, April 27 Memorandum, the 367 trouble, Ergenekon, the Gezi incidents and the parallel structure conspiracy. In between all those, many other issues. The innuendos of the military, threatening from the Ergenekon members, Sarıkız, coups…

According to the opinions, if it was any other political leader, he would either fall victim to these calamities, or surrender and walk away.

Erdoğan was different. He broke the customs. He brought his own customs. When the military issued a memorandum, he came up and asked “what’s this?” and by saying “You are working in subordinate to me” he issued a “counter-memorandum”.

Besides, in all those processes, he formed a unique and unmatched communication with the public.

There is“symmetry” between AK Party’s law and the “law of the instrument”.

Now, the “legislation” should be rendered appropriate to this “natural condition”.

President Erdoğan set the bars there. We can already say that the election in June is the “Presidential election”.

The point that’ll be arrived at is this: the administration of a President, who had been elected with direct votes, won’t be “indirect”. The quality of the votes will also spread on the quality of the administration.

Rendering the “legislation” suitable to the “reality” is of course not that easy. The thing that is suitable to the law of AK Party (or the instrument) might not be suitable to the others’ – inside or outside – laws.

However, it’s possible.

The first condition for succeeding is to see that it’s “possible”.