Presidents Shaping Public Opinion in Parliamentary Democracies: A Survey Experiment in Turkey

Original Article

Abstract

Many parliamentary democracies feature a president alongside a prime minister. While these presidents have a nonpartisan status as head of state, they often have had long political careers with partisan affiliations before assuming office. How do voters react when such actors make issue statements to shape public opinion? Are such statements filtered through voters’ partisan lenses, provoked by the partisan background of these actors? Or perhaps partisan reactions are not invoked, owing to the nonpartisan status of the office? We argue that voters’ reactions depend on the issue domain. Partisan reactions will be invoked only when the statements are about issues outside the president’s prerogatives. We provide evidence for our argument from a population-based survey experiment in Turkey.

Keywords

Presidents Public opinion Partisanship Partisan cue Survey experiment Turkey 

Supplementary material

11109_2017_9404_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (313 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (pdf 312 KB)

References

  1. Amorim Neto, O., & Strøm, K. (2006). Breaking the parliamentary chain of delegation: Presidents and non-partisan cabinet members in European democracies. British Journal of Political Science, 36(4), 619–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bartels, L. M. (2000). Partisanship and voting behavior, 1952–1996. American Journal of Political Science, 44(1), 35–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bartels, L. M. (2002). Beyond the running tally: Partisan bias in political perceptions. Political Behavior, 24(2), 117–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baylis, T. A. (1996). Presidents versus prime ministers: Shaping executive authority in Eastern Europe. World Politics, 48(3), 297–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brader, T. A., & Tucker, J. A. (2012). Following the party’s lead: Party cues, policy opinion, and the power of partisanship in three multiparty systems. Comparative Politics, 44(4), 403–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brewer, M. B. (2007). The importance of being we: Human nature and intergroup relations. American Psychologist, 62(8), 728–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E., & Stokes, D. E. (1960). The American voter. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  8. Çarkoğlu, A. (2014). Voting behavior. In M. Heper & S. Sayarı (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of modern Turkey (pp. 160–170). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Cheibub, J. A., Elkins, Z., & Ginsburg, T. (2014). Beyond presidentialism and parliamentarism. British Journal of Political Science, 44(3), 515–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Converse, P. E. (1969). Of time and partisan stability. Comparative Political Studies, 2(2), 139–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Doyle, D., & Elgie, R. (2016). Maximizing the reliability of cross-national measures of presidential power. British Journal of Political Science, 46(4), 731–741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dunning, T. (2012). Natural experiments in the social sciences: A design-based approach. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Elgie, R. (1999). The politics of semi-presidentialism. In R. Elgie (Ed.), Semi-presidentialism in Europe (pp. 1–21). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fernandes, J. M., & Magalhães, P. C. (2016). Government survival in semi-presidential regimes. European Journal of Political Research, 55, 61–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Greene, D., Palmquist, B., & Schickler, E. (2002). Partisan hearts and minds: Political parties and the social identities of voters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Heper, M., & Çınar, M. (1996). Parliamentary government with a strong president: The post-1989 Turkish experience. Political Science Quarterly, 111(3), 483–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kalaycıoğlu, E. (1994). Elections and party preferences in Turkey: Changes and continuities in the 1990s. Comparative Political Studies, 27(3), 402–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kalaycıoğlu, E. (2008). Attitudinal orientations to party organizations in Turkey in the 2000s. Turkish Studies, 9(2), 297–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kang, S.-G. (2009). The influence of presidential heads of state on government formation in European democracies: Empirical evidence. European Journal of Political Research, 48, 543–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kim, Y. H. (2015). A troubled marriage? Divided minority government, cohabitation, presidential powers, president-parliamentarism and semi-presidentialism. Government and Opposition, 50(4), 652–681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lau, R. R., & Redlawsk, D. P. (2006). How voters decide: Information processing during election campaigns. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Makovsky, A. (1999). The new activism in Turkish foreign policy. SAIS Review, 19(1), 92–113.Google Scholar
  23. Mardin, Ş. (1973). Center-periphery relations: A key to Turkish politics? Daedalus, 102(1), 169–190.Google Scholar
  24. Mutz, D. C. (2011). Population-based survey experiments. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nicholson, S. P. (2012). Polarizing cues. American Journal of Political Science, 56(1), 52–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Özbudun, E. (1988). The status of the president of the Republic under the Constitution of 1982: Presidentialism or parliamentarism? In M. Heper & A. Evin (Eds.), State, democracy, and the military: Turkey in the 1980s (pp. 37–45). New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  27. Özsoy Boyunsuz, Ş. (2016). The AKP’s proposal for a “Turkish type of presidentialism” in comparative context. Turkish Studies, 17(1), 68–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Özsoy, Ş. (2010). What does Turkey’s new choice of popular presidential elections mean? European Public Law, 16(1), 139–160.Google Scholar
  29. Protsyk, O. (2005). Prime ministers’ identity in semi-presidential regimes: Constitutional norms and cabinet formation outcomes. European Journal of Political Research, 44, 721–748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Robins, P. (1992). Turkish foreign policy and the Gulf crisis: Adventurist or dynamic? In C. H. Dodd (Ed.), Turkish foreign policy: New prospects (pp. 70–87). Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire: Eothen Press.Google Scholar
  31. Roper, S. D. (2002). Are all semipresidential regimes the same? A comparison of premier-presidential regimes. Comparative Politics, 34(3), 253–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Samuels, D. J., & Shugart, M. S. (2010). Presidents, parties, and prime ministers: How the separation of powers affects party organization and behavior. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Samuels, D., & Zucco, C. (2014). The power of partisanship in Brazil: Evidence from survey experiments. American Journal of Political Science, 58(1), 212–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schleiter, P., & Morgan-Jones, E. (2009). Constitutional power and competing risks: Monarchs, presidents, prime ministers, and the termination of east and west European cabinets. American Political Science Review, 103(3), 496–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Shugart, M. S., & Carey, J. M. (1992). Presidents and assemblies: Constitutional design and electoral dynamics. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Siaroff, A. (2003). Comparative presidencies: The inadequacy of the presidential, semi-presidential and parliamentary distinction. European Journal of Political Research, 42, 287–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Strøm, K., & Swindle, S. M. (2002). Strategic parliamentary dissolution. American Political Science Review, 96(3), 575–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Tavits, M. (2008). Presidents with prime ministers: Do direct elections matter? New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Zaller, J. R. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of International RelationsKoç UniversityIstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations