President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, the leader of the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) which has been in power for 13 years, was elected president on Aug. 10, 2014, with 52 percent of the popular vote. The date Aug. 10, the main impact of which is currently being felt, has a meaning that is far beyond an ordinary election for Turkish political life. Previously, the Turkish parliamentary system stipulated that the president would be elected by Parliament. However, a constitutional amendment that was introduced in 2007 requires that the president be elected by the public. When former President Abdullah Gül's term in office ended in 2014, the constitutional amendment that was made seven years ago was implemented for the first time and Erdoğan emerged victorious in the election. However, the old, parliamentary system still continues - a situation which, naturally, accompanies a discussion about Erdoğan's duties and authorities within the system. Despite the legitimacy Erdoğan has, opposition parties criticize him for making political statements and being partial. Erdoğan is, however, a political figure who received the greatest number of votes in Turkey, with more votes than the totality of opposition parties in Parliament, and even more than the votes for the ruling party itself. Therefore, he gains this strong legitimacy not because he is in tune with Parliament, but because he received votes by directly convincing the public. From this standpoint, he is not a bureaucratic, but a political president. In addition, Erdoğan made promises during his election campaign that he has to fulfill. One of his promises to the public was to work actively in order to achieve the current practices, that is, the objectives of the New Turkey.So, how to overcome this crisis? Obviously, it cannot be settled by insisting on the Turkish parliamentary system, which lost its efficiency when Erdoğan was elected president elected by the public in 2014. In this case, the sole remedy is to clarify the new system. We should find a presidential system model that is suitable for the de facto situation. This might be a semi-presidential or presidential system or a system where the president is affiliated with a party. Interestingly enough, the only person who overtly propounds this idea is Erdoğan. This is interesting because the Turkish parliamentary system gives Erdoğan many more authorities than any presidential system gives a president. He has extensive authorities such as calling for parliamentary elections and presiding over Parliament's Council of Ministers at will. The oddities are not limited to this alone. More surprisingly, opposition parties are strongly against the idea of switching to a presidential system from the existing amorphous parliamentary system that gives them a narrower political sphere, arguing that the country will head toward dictatorship or one-man rule. It is easier, however, to tend to one-man rule within the current paralyzed system. The June 7 parliamentary elections are an important opportunity to remove this confusion. The AK Party promises in its election manifesto that it will make a move to launch a presidential system if it can achieve enough seats to enable it to hold a referendum on constitutional amendments. If the AK Party fails to come in first in the June 7 elections the confusion will continue considering that opposition parties are not strong enough to come to power in any other way than forming a coalition. The latter alternative will lead to poor results that will have an impact on a greater number of areas including the economy and Turkey's EU membership perspective in addition to jeopardizing all other areas that Turkey has achieved progress in over the past 13 years. This is the greatest concern of Turkey's democrats in discussions about a presidential system.