Opposition parties have raised with one voice objection to President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's proposal to change Turkey's government to a presidential system. Erdoğan explains the rationale behind the system change along the lines that a presidential system would ensure stability in the government. Indeed, a presidential system introduces a stable and effective form of government that allows the executive to design long-term projects, realizing them without facing bureaucratic hindrances and respond quickly to emerging crises within and outside the country. In contrast, the opposition asserts that a presidential system would concentrate power in one hand for it tends to discharge the system of checks and balances. By eliminating the separation of powers, it may turn Turkey into an authoritarian country with one-man rule.Like all students of government systems, the opposition might also have been well aware of the fact that a presidential system does not liquidate control mechanisms. Both parliamentary and presidential systems are democratic systems with the ability to uphold fair and regular elections, separation of powers and the rule of law. They are both fundamentally different from an authoritarian regime, which forbids power sharing. Hence, the shift from a parliamentary to a presidential system is but a shift from one democratic regime to another one. It is obvious that the opposition's objection to a presidential system cannot be justified on technical terms. If so, then why does the opposition object to a presidential system?The discourse of authoritarianismOf course, it is politics. The opposition in Turkey has been in a defensive position for more than a decade. Political parties such as the Republican People's Party (CHP), which is an offshoot of the bureaucratic oligarchy, struggle to revert to the old status quo. They have deployed the discourse of authoritarianism in order to block the Justice and Development Party's (AK Party) attempts to roll back bureaucratic tutelage and uphold excluded social groups in society through the so-called process of democratic openings. For instance, they strive to produce a perception that the country is moving toward a "dictatorship" under Erdoğan's leadership. To substantiate this claim, they gripe at Erdoğan's so-called foibles such as bitterness in his public speeches and unruliness in his political maneuvers. To give form to the problem of authoritarianism, the opposition indulges in political opportunism by blaming Erdoğan in person for being larger than life. In other words, he is protested for being too strong.But where does this strength come from? This is in large measure accounted by structural factors. There is a simple political truism that without favorable structural conditions, no political actor can wield such an overwhelming agency in the political system. Namely, only in the absence or feebleness of collective authority structures can a political actor attain such an influential role. Turkish politics, which is divided into closed and partial ideological clusters, is imbued with a large structural vacuum. It is this structural hiatus that permits Erdoğan to be prominent and fill the existing vacuum of authority.Nevertheless, not everybody in society recognizes his rule as authoritative, especially those having ideological ties with the bureaucratic oligarchy. As a matter of fact, in a social setting where groups do not share a common ethical-political ground and therefore view each other as enemies rather than rivals, the glimpse of authoritarianism is inevitable. This is because the legitimacy of rule does not spring from the inside, but is enforced from the outside. Regardless of which political actor is on top, the accusation of authoritarianism will easily be on the table since its rule would not be admitted as authoritative, but rather based on power, even if it is obtained through legitimate means such as free elections. Therefore, replacing the ruling party with the opposition, or more precisely, handing down Erdoğan's position to one of the leaders of the opposition would not make any difference with regard to the problem of authoritarianism in Turkey. This is because authoritarianism, before anything else, is essentially a structural rather than being an individual level phenomenon. It is but the outcome of the failure of authority.The illegitimacy of bureaucratic ruleThen we should ask how Turkey has come to this point of authority crisis. In the 19th century the Ottoman Empire witnessed a serious authority crisis facing the challenge of bureaucratic elite and ethno-religious movements. Under the influence of the ideas of modern bureaucracy, rationalism and nationalism, they demanded to redefine sovereignty and have a share in power. This pressure produced the proclamation of the constitutional monarchy in 1876. Yet after a short while, the parliament was dispersed. In 1908, due to increasing pressure, it was reopened. In the end, in the 1920s, the bureaucratic elite sidelined both the dynasty and ethno-religious minorities along with the conservative sections of society. Afterward, it wiped out the old authority bases, mainly the dynasty, religion and tradition. Instead, secularism and nationalism were introduced as new bases of authority. But this too failed to produce authority. Elite rule was not authoritative, but rested largely on force.In the 1950s, Turkey shifted to a democratic regime. Free elections with multiple political parties were held in which the majority of the society voted against the bureaucratic elite. This was one special instance when the authority crisis made an appearance. Society was divided into two antagonistic camps. The shift to a parliamentary system proved deleterious for the bureaucratic elite. So they precipitated the 1960 military coup and erected a set of tutelary institutions that were to serve as a protective belt for bureaucratic rule.In the 1980s, Turkey's integration into the capitalist world economy merged with the empowerment of excluded social sections. This altered the balance of power in society and therefore exacerbated the legitimacy crisis of bureaucratic rule. In the 2000s, as conservative sections of society moved to the center of politics, the bureaucratic elite withdrew to the opposition. The mainstream of society, under the umbrella of the AK Party, has started to control the field of democratic politics and increase its share in civil society. However, the bureaucratic elite in the bureaucracy has remained resilient, not to mention the so-called "parallel structure." This reveals the political rationale behind the opposition's resistance to a presidential system. A presidential system facilitates the president, if he wishes, to bypass bureaucratic forces that tend to slow down the executive for their own political interests. This may, in the end, enervate and put the last nail in the coffin of bureaucratic rule.Can a presidential system be a cure-all?Then how could authority be erected in Turkey? The parliamentary system is constructed on the assumption that political actors produce authority through rational discussions in Parliament. This rests on the conditions that there should be conflict of views, not of interests, and the participants should be able to be convinced through argument. Hence, it presumes a political environment that is purely populated by rational political actors and determined by democratic political processes.Alas, Turkish politics is paralyzed by struggles between rigid ideological actors. And more, it is constantly subject to the threat of extra-political elements that impair the establishment of authority structures. In that case, the first step has to be to transform the political settings within which political struggles are carried out. This change may ensure that the hope of attaining power through negative politics and non-democratic ways is obsolete.One way to transform the political settings in Turkey might be through changing the system of government, or more precisely, shifting to a presidential system. Indeed, a presidential system prioritizes unity and stability in the executive branch and empowers legislation, and thereby leaves almost no room for extra-political elements. Accordingly, the increasing primacy of legitimate political means at the expense of non-political means in obtaining power might deter political parties from searching for extra-political allies or resorting to non-democratic ways. Besides, since it is a winner-takes-all system, it urges political parties to aim at gaining victory in elections rather than remaining in the opposition and waiting for the ruling party to make a mistake. All of this coerces political parties to carve out policies and forge political discourses addressing society's center of gravity. This may trigger normalization of politics and, though unintentionally, help produce common social ground on shared ethical and political values and entail the establishment of solid authority structures in society.All in all, the political realities, by and large, determine the governing mechanisms of society. Yet this time the mechanisms, by force, might fundamentally alter the political realities of a society.