This article focuses on the current challenges of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey (GNAT) in developing its legislative capacity, with a special focus on the availability of resources for individual legislators. On the eve of full implementation of a new presidential model in Turkey, the availability of resources dedicated to the improvement of legislative capacity is crucial for an effective system of checks and balances. This emphasizes the vital connection between the lack of resources available to individual legislators in their lawmaking and supervisory processes and the overall legislative capacity of the GNAT (Gençkaya Reference Gençkaya, Gençkaya, Keleş and Hazama1999; Nakamura and Gençkaya Reference Nakamura and Gençkaya2010).

Various factors may influence the effectiveness of a parliament, such as the constitutional structure of the state (i.e., presidential versus parliamentary), the power of political parties, the functioning of parliamentary committees, the government oversight, the rules of procedure, and individual role orientations (Johnson Reference Johnson2005; Massicard Reference Massicard2005; Olson and Norton Reference Olson and Norton1997).

The most important challenge of the 1982 Constitution is the empowerment of the executive by rationalizing the legislative process. Numerical requirements for lawmaking and supervision activities, except for written questions, are limited to parliamentary party groups rather than the parliamentarians. Considering the high part of discipline and lack of institutionalization in the GNAT, parliamentarians became less able to initiate any legislative proposal. On the contrary, the superiority of the parliamentary majority (party) in lawmaking and supervision activities was enhanced gradually. The “basic law” and “bag law” methods, which require special deliberation rules for bills in the general assembly, minimized the intervention of opposition parties and parliamentarians in this process. The GNAT’s supervision function of the executive also was limited by recent constitutional amendments in 2017. Interpellation and oral questioning were repealed. Contrary to the argument on the rationalization of legislative process, the procedural capacity of parliamentarians was weakened. That is, recent constitutional changes constrained parliament’s power.

After 16 years in power—surviving backlash from the old elites and their middle-class base—the Justice and Development Party in Turkey clearly has become the new status quo. However, rather than creating more democratic and inclusive rules of politics, Turkey has witnessed in recent years a democratic breakdown coupled with the development of a less-rule-based regime. The result of this political transformation has been a power shift from parliamentary supremacy to a very strong executive, deterioration of the independence and impartiality of the judiciary, and a lack of effective checks and balances (Bertelsmann Transformation Index 2018).

Therefore, this article argues that increasing technical capacity of parliamentarians in lawmaking and supervision activities—especially at committee stages—may promote their and parliament’s overall effectiveness. Our analysis leads to a conclusion that parliamentary structures and functions require certain knowledge and skills to be used in fulfilling the role of a Member of Parliament. Parliamentarians require continuous education and training programs and professional development to stay updated on emerging democratic and governance trends. In addition to their representation functions, parliamentarians may have several other responsibilities within the scope of their duties to the parliament, their parties, and their constituents. In this respect, candidates or newly elected parliamentarians may have access to various resources that may improve their awareness of the gridlock of parliamentary structures and processes. Political parties can provide training for candidates and newly elected parliamentarians, or the parliament itself can organize orientation programs and continuous seminars on the basic aspects of parliamentary life. In this respect, the professionalization of parliamentarians may rest on the development of the skills necessary to effectively perform their expected functions. Specialization may come through learning by experiencing the daily practices of the position(s) held (Coghill et al. 2009).

It is important to underscore the impact of international projects and programs on potential improvements in legislative capacity. Members whose major function is devoted to constituency service in practical terms can hardly reserve sufficient time for legislative processes, which require significant investments in preparation, information collection, and development of policy positions on complex subject matters. In this regard, human-resources capacity and the ways and means of supplying information and knowledge from other available sources are the major considerations that take on special importance. Reliable information and analysis are needed, especially during the committee stage. Individual advisers to legislators deal primarily with constituency problems and therefore are hindered in their attempts to address legislative-related activities. The lessons that can be drawn from similar situations in other countries are elaborated in the conclusion to this spotlight (Lewis and Coghill Reference Lewis and Coghill2016).