Does the Government System of the 1921 Constitution Qualify as an Assembly Government System? The Controversial Government System of the 1921 Constitution

Mert Duygun and Işıl Kurnaz

Izmir Bakırcay University and Bilkent University

Within the harsh conditions of the “National Liberation” period, 1919 – 1923, the Turkish Grand National Assembly (TGNA), calling itself “the only and true representative of the nation”, enacted the Constitution of 1921. The system of government prescribed in this Constitution was considered to be a conventional assembly government system (a form of government in which the executive and legislative power is consolidated in the parliament). However, there are some deviations from the “pure” assembly government system which would pave the way for the parliamentary system. 

Although the aforementioned constitutional period is called a typical textbook example of the assembly government model, to clearly understand the governmental system of the 1921 Constitution, it is important to consider not only constitutional form but also historical and political facts, the execution of the assembly government system and amendments to positive law. Irrespective of whether it was an assembly government system or not in theory, it should be noted that the intermingling of the executive and legislative power in political reality is not limited only to the notion of the pure assembly government system. 

In this post, we firstly discuss the government system choice of the 1921 Constitution from the point of view of whether or not it was a pure assembly government system. We then explain the constitutional amendment of 1923, which legitimized the deviation from the form of the assembly government system.  

The Assembly Government System from 1920 to 1923 

The choice of government system in the 1921 Constitution was a constitutional recognition of the political reality shaped after the foundation of the TGNA. This political reality came about due to the pressing need to accommodate religious and political tensions prevailing at the time. The TGNA was composed of different political and cultural groups, and some of the deputies still represented the feudal and religious political circles and were undoubtedly loyal to the Sultanate in Istanbul. This political dilemma could be dealt with only through a temporary solution, namely a political system based on a fusion of powers and undivided sovereignty, represented by the Assembly. This temporary compromise was neither the real intent of Mustafa Kemal (Atatürk), founding President of the Republic of Turkey, nor concordant with the political reality after the Independence War. 

Hence, Mustafa Kemal presented a motion to the Assembly concerning the formation of the new political system starting from the beginning of the Republic. According to this motion, the TGNA should serve not only as a typical legislature but should also exercise executive power. This political system did not include any kind of a head of state; the Speaker could represent the TGNA, yet this representation was only a symbolic duty. The TGNA needed a Council of Ministers (İcra Vekilleri Heyeti) to exercise its executive power. 

The TGNA approved this motion and enacted Law No. 3 on the Organization of the Council of Ministers in 1920. This law required each individual member of the Council to be elected by the TGNA. If there was a conflict between these Ministers, the conflict was to be resolved by the TGNA. This clearly showed parliament’s supremacy in relation to executive power. But another piece of legislation (Law No. 47) introduced a new rule, under which the members of the Council would be elected by the TGNA from those that the Speaker nominated. Undoubtedly, this law strengthened Mustafa Kemal’s powers as the Speaker of the Assembly and it could be considered as a shift from the unlimited authority of the TGNA to choose Council members. This new law was frequently opposed by some deputies of TGNA, who suspected Mustafa Kemal and his allies of an intention to abolish the Sultanate. These members supported the fusion of powers as a legal guarantee against a possible dictatorship of Mustafa Kemal and his allies. Given the fact that the 1921 Constitution did not explicitly regulate the method of the election of Ministers, the Speaker’s dominant role continued. Finally, Law No. 244 was adopted in 1922, and the TGNA, again, began to elect the members of the Council of Ministers directly (İcra Vekillerinin Suret-i İntibahi Hakkında Kanun, Law No. 244).  

The text of the 1921 Constitution was drafted in the light of these extraordinary conditions and constitutional debates showed the strict decision of the TGNA on establishing the fusion of powers. Article 2 of the Constitution is clear proof of this fusion of powers: “Executive power and legislative responsibility is exercised by and concentrated in the hands of the Grand National Assembly which is the sole and real representative of the nation.” Article 3 of the Constitution reinforced this and stipulated that the Turkish State is governed by the Grand National Assembly. Articles 8 and 9 regulated the status of the Council of Ministers and also the status of the Speaker of TGNA, who was from then on the ex-officio head of the Council. According to Article 9, one member from among themselves was to be elected as the head of the Council of Ministers. Legally, this was an attempt to create a quasi-Prime Minister. In the last stages of the process of establishing the 1921 Constitution, TGNA decision No. 384 on the Duty and Responsibility of the Head of Council of Ministers stipulated collective political responsibility for the head, which is a typical feature of the parliamentary system. 

According to majority opinion, the government system foreseen in the 1921 Constitution was a pure assembly system. This system is determined to be an “assembly government system”, based on the fact that executive and legislative powers were vested in the Assembly, and while the Assembly could change the Ministers, the Council of Ministers had no competence to dissolve the Assembly.  

The political system of 1921 contained all the main features of the assembly government system, such as the lack of head of state and lack of independence of executive to legislative. Thus the executive organ, which did not have a ‘legal existence’ at all (like the parliamentary government system), had no instrument to cope with parliament in the case of  a political or judicial conflict between parliament and this executive organ. 

Yet, in reality, Turkey under the 1921 Constitution did not function as a true assembly government system. As mentioned above, the TGNA empowered Mustafa Kemal - who was the Speaker of the TGNA and the charismatic leader of the Independence War - to appoint the members of the Council of Ministers. The TGNA itself refrained from making appointments of civil servants, and entrusted this task to the Council of Ministers as an executive task. Further, 83% of laws made were introduced as government bills, and not as proposals of individual members of parliament. Finally, Mustafa Kemal acted as the head of the state, despite the fact that the 1921 Constitution did not recognize such an office. Afterwards, Mustafa Kemal himself admited that he served as the head of state during the 1921 Constitution.  

A Deviation from the Assembly Government System through the Amendment of 1923  

The transition from the assembly government system to the parliamentary system occured not only through the execution of the system, but also through the 1923 Amendment to the 1921 Constitution. The 1923 Amendment was important because it was the “evidenced amendment” which officially proclaimed the Republic and constituted the position of President for the first time in Turkey’s history. According to Article 11 of the amendment, the President was to preside at the Council of Ministers. Moreover, the amendment provided that the President of the Republic would be elected by the TGNA from among its members. The method of establishing the government was also altered: the President was to appoint the Prime Minister from among the members of the TGNA, and other Ministers were to be appointed by the Prime Minister from among the Assembly’s members, ultimately with the President’s submission to the TGNA for approval. 

The form of government organised by the 1923 Amendment was the beginning of the route to a parliamentary system. This deviation from the assembly government system to the parliamentary one took place, according to the literature, as a consequence of Mustafa Kemal’s stipulation of a powerful, competent and relatively independent parliament. The new Assembly amended the 1921 Constitution, and officially declared the Republic in 1923, which made a transition to the parliamentary system of government, then ratified the Constitution of 1924, which was in force until 1960. In the academic literature, the legislative and executive features of the 1921 Constitution have been considered as a preparation phase for the governmental transition to the form of the parliamentary system which was implemented in the 1924 Constitution. 

Mert Duygun is an assistant professor at Izmir Bakırcay University, Faculty of Law.  

Işıl Kurnaz is a research assistant at Bilkent University, Faculty of Law.  

Suggested citation: Mert Duygun and Işıl Kurnaz ‘Does the Government System of the 1921 Constitution Qualify as an Assembly Government System? The Controversial Government System of the 1921 Constitution’ IACL-AIDC Blog (16 March 2021) https://blog-iacl-aidc.org/centenary-of-the-turkish-constitution/2021/3/16/does-the-government-system-of-the-1921-constitution-qualify-as-an-assembly-government-system-the-controversial-government-system-of-the-1921-constitution-5x4nn