The "No" movie was based on the unpublished play "El Plebiscito," which was about the historic advertising tactics used during the political campaigns of the 1988 national plebiscite in Chile on whether Gen. Augusto Pinochet should stay in power for another eight years, or whether there should be an open democratic presidential election the following year. In the movie, Mexican actor Gael García Bernal plays René, a successful advertiser, who starts to working for the "no" campaign because of his hatred of Pinochet's tyranny behind the back of his "yes" campaigner boss.Francisco Garcia Ferrada, a Chilean advertiser who inspired the leading role René, recently came to Turkey upon the invitation of the main opposition Republican People's Party (CHP). The idea behind the invitation was to promote the party's "no" campaign for the upcoming constitutional referendum. Ferrada spoke at an event in Istanbul on Saturday and said some surprising things. He said, "I have been in Turkey for a week now and I still do not understand what the 'no' vote suggests," shocking the people who invited him. He also said that the CHP would not be able to give a political message or hope for the country if they cannot properly explain the reason behind their "no" campaign.Ferrada continued to say that the campaign he promoted back then and inspired the movie in question was "kind of like a publicity campaign against a dictator, Pinochet, and the situation in Chile was quite different from Turkey," contrary to the statements by the CHP, which invited him. As you know, the CHP claims that a presidential system in Turkey would be equal to a dictatorship.Nine of the G20 countries are governed by presidential systems, including the United States, Brazil, South Korea and India, while France is governed by semi-presidential system. However, it has become a habit to preach about Turkey's constitutional draft, which will change Turkey's political system from a parliamentary system to a presidential one if the Turkish people say "yes" on April 16 referendum, as if it is something new, a ruling model that has never been seen before in democratic countries. Or that politics in Turkey will become worse than a constitutional monarchy, which is the governing system in the U.K., by the way.The "yes" campaign in Turkey argues that if a nation wants to achieve its goals, it first needs a powerful and efficient system of government, whose power and responsibility is well defined. "Yes" has already started to become an acronym for a slogan: "Yes for one nation, one flag, one homeland, and one state." However, "no" has just meant "no thanks, we are good for now." It's not something new for the opposition in Turkey to accuse President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan of being a dictator; they said the same things when he was prime minister and continued to repeat themselves when the Turkish people elected him outright with a simple majority of the vote in the first round of the presidential vote in 2014. They didn't hesitate to say the same things after the Turkish people poured into the streets to defend their will on the night of July 15 last summer when the Gülenists tried to stage a coup and overthrow him. They now say that changing the political system in Turkey will make him a dictator.We should stop here for a second and ask to ourselves, is he really a dictator, or in fact, a very powerful and quite popular leader?On the other hand, does the "no" campaign in Turkey offer anything new, I mean, any simple or different thing other than holding the current system during which they accused Erdoğan of being a dictator many times anyway? I have not even mentioned the hundreds of political crises that took Turkey's years to overcome and prevent it from achieving its goals because of the defects of the current system known to all citizens of Turkey. Does the "no" camp offer a revised parliamentary system that gives Turkish people an option? Do they suggest any difference? They just say, "no thanks, we are good."When the last general election in Turkey was approaching, again and unsurprisingly, the hottest debate was about President Erdoğan. He was not a candidate in the elections, but still the entire election was about him. Opposition party leaders were rallying and taking their gloves off against Erdoğan. Everyone was running their campaign mostly against him. The outlawed terrorist groups, like the Gülenist Terror Group (FETÖ) and the PKK, were constantly targeting him. A minority government was appearing in the anti-Erdoğan camp's dreams. The greatest campaign promise was that "they will not allow Erdoğan to become president [in a presidential system]."Meanwhile, the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) supporters on the street were saying that they would vote for Erdoğan, when they were asked, even though he was not a candidate.Erdoğan founded the AK Party in 2001. He has been the de facto leader of the party in people's minds and hearts, and still is. That has been valid for both his supporters and his opponents. The opponents of Erdoğan turned the last elections in Turkey into a symbolic referendum for him. He successfully passed all the tests. In the presidential election on Aug. 10, 2014, one of his biggest promises during his presidential campaign was transforming Turkey's parliamentary system into a presidential system, not for himself but for the era after his term. He got 52 percent of the vote and became the first directly elected president of Turkey.The system has already changed in Turkey over the last 10 years even though it is not formally written in the Constitution yet. The people voted for him and showed their support for his promises on changing the parliamentary government into a presidential system. That is why we are here, going to a referendum to vote on the transformation of the system that we have discussed and tested for years. Things have already transformed in Turkey, whether the opposition accepts it or not, now it is time to ask the people one last time. Let's see if they will say "yes to change" or "no thanks, we are good."