As they are still ruminating over their presidential candidate for the upcoming elections, the opposition parties of the "table for six" alliance apparently look forward to having a say in what the next president should do. Although they expressed a desire to return to the old political system with a president independent of any political party, Ahmet Davutoğlu’s recent statements point otherwise. The Future Party (GP) chairperson said regardless of the next president’s affiliation (from one of the parties in the bloc or outside), the chairs of the six parties would be authorized to participate in decision-making processes. "They will have as much authority over each strategic decision as the president," he said, fuelling a debate on the legitimacy of such a process.

Legal experts tagged it as "unconstitutional" and "a theft of authority." Mehmet Uçum, acting chair of the Turkish Presidency’s Legal Policies Council, said the idea of having a ceremonial president with the actors of the "table for six" governing, was "a strategy to disrupt executive power."

Davutoğlu said in a televised interview last week that a president intent on implementing what he/she decided upon would "create conflict." "We will determine a method and decisions will be made based on this method. If the president decides to assign someone to lead an important institution, a security agency or economic institution for instance, it will require approval, signatures of all (chairs of the six parties). If he/she opposes it and assigns someone else, we will bring forward this rule," he said. Davutoğlu has denied that it would reflect a "puppet president" and insisted that it was simply "a form of consultation" and they will not "impose a name to be assigned" to the next president.

Uçum told the Sabah newspaper on Wednesday that it was "legally impossible" and "a declaration of a blatant violation of the Constitution." "They will seek to vote for a presidential candidate with executive powers but he/she would not be able to govern. On the contrary, people not voted into office by the public will have that power," he said.

He said such comments are "undemocratic," pointing out that only a president who won more than 50% of the vote has executive power. "We have a legitimate system based on public approval. Yet, people not approved by the public will have a say equal to that of a president elected by the public and intervene in his/her powers. I had thought that (the 'table for six') was aspiring to improve democracy. What they planned to do, however, was the elimination of elected representatives," he said.

Ali Babacan, head of "table for six" member Democracy and Progress Party (DEVA), echoed Davutoğlu’s comments. In an interview earlier this week with the T24 website, Babacan said the president would be required to consult with the six parties in "important decisions" and obtain their consent, "before executing his/her authority." "If a joint candidate is elected, then, it is natural for the next president to remain in consultation with those parties," he said. He went further and said the opposition bloc was also open to the idea of having chairs of all six parties as vice presidents.

The Good Party (IP), another member of the opposition bloc, on the other hand, appears to be opposing the ideas of Babacan and Davutoğlu. Party spokesperson Kürşad Zorlu said at a press conference on Tuesday that the method Davutoğlu spoke of would not be approved by public. "The Constitution has clear articles on this matter, defining the duties of president. The president represents the Republic (of Türkiye) and the unity of the nation. IP is committed to this principle and this issue is not discussed by the six parties," he said. Zorlu said an approach of having a president blindly obeying what six parties say was inappropriate. He, however, added that the president was supposed to act in line with the "government program" that the bloc would introduce on Jan. 30.

Mehmet Sarı, a prominent lawyer who chairs the Turkish Center of Judicial Studies (TÜRKAD) told the Sabah newspaper that it was unacceptable to have "an organ of tutelage" above a president elected by public vote. "No authority, no organ can act as a decision-making mechanism over the Presidency, unless they are constitutionally appointed. Otherwise, it means hijacking authority by people not authorized by the Constitution," he said.

Sarı said what the opposition bloc "dreamed of" was installing themselves as a decision-making mechanism via a proxy president and described it as something both against law and politics.

For President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, the main opponent of the opposition bloc, it is a form of "civil tutelage" on the country, which were tested by such tutelages at the hands of the bureaucratic and military elite in the past.

"I wonder why the nation would elect someone who cannot make decisions on his/her own free will on matters crucial to the country and nation as president," Erdoğan said at an event in the capital Ankara on Tuesday. "The nation will vote for a president but six ‘trustees’ will run the country. They have one drum and six people to beat it. On one side, you will have a president who won the votes of 25 or 30 million and on one side, you will have six people who are not even capable of winning a few hundred thousands votes, yet, will manage the Presidency. Such a president will not have more free will, personality or governance than a scarecrow," he said, referring to a Turkish phrase used for people whose actions or words are ignored by others.

"It is the nation that will pay the price in the face of such a warped mindset shaped by personal ambitions (of party chairs). But I don’t think that will be the case and I believe our nation will disrupt their plans. This nation certainly will not elect a president who will not be able to act without authorization of his/her ‘superiors.’ That model of presidency is an insult to this nation which suffered from instability for years," he said, referring to bickering coalition governments of the past.

Erdoğan branded Davutoğlu’s model as unconstitutional and said it was "a civilian coup attempt," adding that the nation would not bow down to civilian tutelage just as it did not bow down to other forms of tutelage.