Might be a bit overblown - other presidential regimes such as France include many of the powers that Erdogan is claiming. As long as guaranteeing an independent judiciary can be done - the powers can be controlled(Trump couldn't do what he wanted to by a long shot)
France's president can appoint cabinet members without parliamentary oversight and has a strong influence over the courts?
Once you lose independence of the judiciary system you basically lost the last remaining checks and balances. This is why I never bought into the threat of fascism from Trump. He would have to make similar changes which would never get off the ground. The US system has been shown to work exactly as intended on a number of occasions in the last two months.
The problem is the executive state has grown significantly over the last few decades in the US. But that was hardly unique to Trump.
If anything the main issue is the presidents ability to conduct 'military actions' without congress. That seems like a major risk.
But compared to Turkey the situation is far better in other western states. This is one situation where saying "USA DOES IT TOO!" can't be used to dismiss this out of hand (or EU countries in this case). And even if they did it wouldn't make it a good idea.
Building a strong opposition can be done, after all, the referendum was won with such a small margin, and without major cities for it.
Guaranteeing the judiciary independence is the biggest issue of course. :-)
Funny you mention justice in France. There are very strong suspicions that the current president of France is using the justice system against his opponents, with a wave of investigations hitting his opponents immediately after his election and another one now, right before a major election.
A centralized presidential system does make it easier to have all sorts of abuse, from which no western democracy is immune.
Without considering the ability for the president in France to pass laws without a parliamentary vote - with the only way to veto being a motion of non-confidence which forces the government to resign.
Correction for any non french reader: a candidate, Francois Fillon, which is being investigated for seven different charges, including fictitious jobs, embezzling public funds, trafficking influence, fakes and usage of fakes and a list of frauds that wouldn't fit on A4 paper [1] has accused the president of using "dark cabinets" to get some dirt on him, quoting a book. The author of said book immediately came out against that, Fillon got slammed by both the president and the ministry of justice, who reminded him he himself voted against numerous measures aimed at making presidential affairs more transparent.
And then Le Pen has been spouting off her victim rethoric for years.
There were also all the investigations that hit Sarkozy and the conservative party when Hollande took power and he perceived Sarkozy as his main rival.
I have followed French politics for too long to believe in coincidences.
I have lived in France and followed politics for too long to not know this isn't unique to Hollande. Sarkozy absolutely abused his power and is suspected to have been the cause of the whole Dominique Strauss Kahn affair. Chirac has been accused of it. Mitterand has been accused of it.
So far, there are no proofs. You also have to realize that our political class is prone to backstabbing, much much more than any other country. Everyone has dirt on everyone in the same party. So far, the Fillon revelations rather seem like they're coming from LR, not the PS or Hollande.
I am certainly not suggesting this is limited to Hollande.
In term of proof, it has kind of been confirmed by Hollande himself indirectly. In his interview book "Un president ne devrait pas dire ca", he mentioned that Fillon contacted him after he took office, encouraging him to dig more dirt on Sarkozy, otherwise they will be facing him at the next election. Hollande then praised his own virtue by pretending he did not proceed and Fillon denied ever asking that. However whether this discussion happened or not, and whether Hollande did it or not, what Hollande confirmed indirectly is that it was a perfectly reasonable request from an insider of French politics (a former prime minister) to get the president to use the justice system against his opponent.
> As such, the prime minister, supported by the Office of the Prime Minister (PMO), controls the appointments of many key figures in Canada's system of governance, including the governor general, the Cabinet, justices of the Supreme Court, senators, heads of crown corporations, ambassadors to foreign countries, the provincial lieutenant governors, and approximately 3,100 other positions.
The bigger issue is their failure to add some context to make the comparison actually interesting. Like they could say that Canadian Prime Ministers are rarely removed from office (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prime_ministers_defeat... ). Nevermind that it has been done a number of times in an orderly fashion.
I am bothered by this. Always been incredibly ignorant about Canadian politics for no reason, is there something about Canadian gov that makes this less frightening then it sounds or does Canada just hand potential for ultra centralized control to their PM?
Harper showed us that the potential for abuse was there, though that's not to say that he was particularly abusive, and it's been part of the political discourse since.
I think many Canadians took for granted just how much process was informal tradition followed on honour and not binding rules.
The US system has been shown to work exactly as intended on a number of occasions in the last two months. [..] the executive state has grown significantly over the last few decades in the US. But that was hardly unique to Trump.
'Exactly as intended' and the growth of executive influence and the federal government as a whole seem rather contradictory. And what's unique is Trump himself.
What dmix claimed is not unique to Trump is the growth of the executive power. dmix is correct in this statement.
The next claim you had an issue with:
> The US system has been shown to work exactly as intended on a number of occasions in the last two months.
That's why it's not contradictory. The courts have (finally) been reining in the president. (It would have been nice if it started a decade or two ago, but Trump is, as you say, something of a unique threat, and that may be concentrating minds in the judiciary.)
It seems contradictory to me because it essentially admits that seminal presidents and events have substantially changed the system but it's ok, because this one won't. I don't think there's any reason to panic but as logic this seems pretty questionable.
Turk here. There will be 13 high level judiciary members, 4 of whom will be appointed by president (Erdogan) and rest by majority of assembly (Erdogan's Party). So forget about independency. They are not even independent at the moment anyways.
A split opposition and a 10% voting threshold. The opposition would essentially have to lay aside their differences and form an anti-Erdogan party. That's unlikely, because the Kemalists and the Kurds hate each other.
The Kemalists want one indivisible Turkey with only Turks. The Kurds not only persist in calling themselves Kurds instead of Turks, but they also want to secede. These two points of view don't play nice with each other.
I had a second look at the proposed changes, there are 2 important ones regarding judicial matters, the change for constitutional court is mainly removing 2 members selected from military judges. The change regarding high judicial court is more complex but i don't see an alarming difference between the new and existing, could you point to me?
>>As long as guaranteeing an independent judiciary can be done
It can't be done, not in Turkey. Appointing judges is in the hands of the Supreme Board of Judges and Prosecutors. The president appoints half of the 12-member board and the parliament, most of whom are Erdogan supporters, appoints the other half.
France is not even close to what Edrogan is doing. Yes, our system gives a lot of power to the president, more than in many countries. However, the prime minister is picked amongst the majority in the national assembly, and there are many, many countermeasures to ensure the president doesn't go wild, even if some recent presidents have tried to erode that (namely, Sarkozy).
I'm afraid this is going to happen inside the EU as well (Hungary, Poland... ). What can I do to prevent this? (I live here and I want to keep living here if possible.)
Talk to people, try to understand their reasoning. Explain to them what will happen if (x) happens. Dont do what we Americans did in the last election and call anyone on the right homophobes, racists, xenophobe etc. That just pushes them further to the other side. Be understanding, but present the facts and hope they understand you.
I hate to post non constructive criticism, but ... unless you do that in a coordinated effort with thousands of others, that's just wasting your time.
The reach of any one person without an amplifier of sorts (traditional media, facebook popularity, etc), is essentially zero; Even in the extremely unlikely case that you've changed the minds of 1,000 people you talked to (because to change 1,000 people's mind and vote, you need to speak to 20,000), it's still a rounding error.
It will make you feel good that you tried while you're at it, yes. It will also demonstrate how powerless you are if the results go against your wishes (or falsely make you think you contributed if they go your way).
It's the same as fighting the centralization of the web, the big brothering of facebook/nsa, etc - you have to mobilize people to act, many of them. And sadly, it's very rarely possible or within one's power.
It's not the same people op mentioned talking to, though; op laid an outline to possibly changing the mind of one person who disagrees with you. But to make a dent, you have to address the masses (and to do that, you have to coordinate with the masses on your side).
This. Voting is essentially always "setup" i.e. the people who make maximum use of the power usually bet on both sides, albeit slightly differently. Since they know it's either one or the other, it doesn't really matter to them who really wins. They have necessary control of the situation no matter what happens.
If you don't frame your life in a way that whoever wins matters to you very less, you are doing something wrong. If that is already the case, your vote doesn't count at all. It's one vote. The chance of your vote actually affecting the outcome of the election is so small that you might as well buy a lottery ticket instead.
If however, you have the power to convince a large enough group of people to sway the election to one side or another, you should sell some of that influence to whoever is offering more money or favors to you.
>If you don't frame your life in a way that whoever wins matters to you very less, you are doing something wrong.
The answer is it does matter, and that you have such little influence is a failure of the system. I'm not talking about one vote, it's that some individuals have more influence over politicians due to their campaign donations. That is unacceptable.
The answer once again is get money out of politics.
Chicken and egg. Incumbents, the only people capable of taking money out of politics (short of some kind of revolution) enjoy the status quo too much to change it.
You can only take money out of politics after you've taken money out of politics
I view your question as "do you agree that since you can't cure cancer, you shouldn't take painkillers or symptom treatments." No, I don't agree. It's just that instead of casting it as the state of being that you are powerless, it is instead that you should fight back.
Schumer said "for every blue collar dem we lose we'll gain middle class suburban whites." That didn't work out, R's turned out for their candidate, as they always do.
The answer is not to suppress the leftist vote and care about the working class' concerns.
Looking at 1930s Germany, the fortunate ones were the ones who got out early. Stopping the political pendulum is hard; it's easier to get out of the way.
I can work remotely, but I can't bring my friends and family with me, and I can't bring all the other things. So I rather try and make 'this' a better place, if possible.
That's great, luckily it doesn't seem that Hungary will collapse to something Turkey is becoming now.
Have you been to Okotogon or other protests? I have and it was really inspiring to see that many young faces around. I Support all efforts of making Fidesz the least appealing party. That's probably all we can do if violence is not considered.
Florida. Sunny, has many beaches. Broadband even in small towns like Palatka. Low cost of living. A good balance of all kinds of crazy. You can even own guns, a big truck and more guns while living on a large river if you so choose all on a salary of about 60k. Then you're just a half hour away from nice size cities.
Florida seems like an absolutely terrible place to get out of totalitarian risk considering the current executive and legislative at both state and federal levels.
It only seems like that. As I said Florida is a nice balance of crazy. We've got several metropolitan areas that appeal to the leftist. We've got a lot of conservative areas too. For the most part people just leave you alone. Florida also has some of the most liberal information laws on the books. That's why we look so crazy. We're also heavily armed with 10s of thousands of former military that take their oaths to the constitution seriously. If we were to have a civil war, I like Florida's odds.
Also, the US government wouldn't nuke their own people. If they did, they won't target Florida. Since those are off the table, we're talking about a traditional war. As we've seen with Afghanistan, the US military doesn't know how to fight an asymetric war. Good luck trying to get people that live in the hundreds of square miles of swamp.
Arms are a big factor. Europe is at far greater risk of authoritarian regimes because their people are effectively disarmed. A few single shot shotguns won't do much. If only their population had ready access to AK47s, AR 15's or event bullpups out of Israel.
> Florida also has some of the most liberal information laws on the books. That's why we look so crazy.
I think this bears emphasis: Pretty much every crime report provided to or made by the police within Florida, silly or sublime, is available to the public [1]. This is a gold mine for people who want to run a "stranger than fiction" web site. It could distort one's view of what Florida is like.
I live in Tampa and love it here. It isn't as conservative as touted. But the recent news out of Cleveland has me on my edge. I don't want to live in a place where crazed individuals can carry guns freely.
Here's the thing, unless you could somehow get rid of every gun on the planet, crazy with a gun is a thing. Given that people can hand craft a revolver with parts from Home Depot, guns are a thing. I am fairly liberal. I'd rather allow good guys with guns to carry than not.
It's better to allow people liberty than to take it away in the name of safety. It's better to realize that anyone can make highly damaging weapons at home (looking at you Boston Bomber).
From a West European citizen Canada has always seemed a good idea. Norway, Sweden and Finland are good candidates notwithstanding the language barrier.
I think there's a danger today with intelligent people moving away from politics due to the mess they perceive it as being (IMO, rightfully so). The problem is that when you take a certain level of rationallity out of politics you let extremism flourish. We need to fix moderate parties, but I have no idea how to do that...
Don't worry, if elections would be made today in Poland then ruling party (PiS) would lost (opposition would have more votes so coalition would be possible). Poland is the most EU enthusiastic society in EU. Most of the things that ruling party does now was not in their program before elections, people protested on streets but it's democracy, you need to wait for next elections. Orban in Hungary is very pragmatic, he talks a lot but when pressured in EU he will take step back. In Hungary genesis is different, 8 years ago there was big economic crisis there, country was on the edge of bankruptcy, Orban and his party changed things, people just voted for bread.
I find this ironic since they are not part of the Eurozone. Their economy is much less at risk from mismanagement in Greece than France, the Netherlands or Germany.
it's democracy, you need to wait for next elections
In a representative democracy, you need to wait for the next elections. In a parliamentarian democracy, a vote of no confidence can trigger elections (like Canada in 2011) or the Prime Minister can ask the Crown to dissolve parliament and call elections (like the UK in 2010). This can lead to situations like 3 elections within 5 years (Canada 2006, 2008, 2011). In the US, federal elections are every two years, with the whole House being up for election and 1/3 of the Senate while the President is up every other Congressional election.
You can be enthusiastic about the EU but not the Euro, I can't imagine any of the successor nations are in a hurry whilst the Greek and Italian issues are unresolved.
You are right about Polish economy less likely being at risk than Greece and Italy's. This is mainly because Poland is not part of the EMU and retain control over their currency.
Well, don't keep us in suspense. What do you think the reasons are for... first, describe the phenomenon under discussion because I think that is the first challenge.
Read someone like Piketty. He has tons of data to back up the assertion that the working classes are losing relative wealth.
Then take an economics course. Realise that globalisation outsources manufacturing, agriculture, services, etc..., lowering costs, but also lowering wages. This is by design. The 'Information' industry in the west was supposed to make up for the loss of blue collar jobs. Except it hasn't.
And then also realise that immigration increases the size of the workforce, especially the uneducated workforce. Again, downward pressure on wages.
Personally I think progressive economics provides a better solution than the regressive protectionism of the right. Except the left pretends there's no problem, and here we are.
No, they're not. Populist forces in the west are intrinsically linked to the collapse of blue collar industries and jobs as well as forced immigration, and aren't necessarily nationalist, it's more a reaction against the status quo.
In Turkey and the Middle East Islamism has been rising, partly due to the collapse of Arab nationalism and partly due to Saudi Arabia's worldwide propagation of Wahhabism.
Not going to use my normal id because I'm fully aware I'll get laughed at, but it's clear to myself and a lot of people who may have knowledge of these things that a divine plan is at work.
We are seeing failure of trust in to EU because its terrible at PR. Its successes are taken as local governments successes ("our govt is awesome, it snatched the money from those bureaucrats for new architecture!") which failures are easily blamed on Brussels ("We wanted to rescure our failing Shipyards and coal mining, but Brussels tells us we can't because its unfair competition! In meantime French and Germans have no issues like that! This is unfair competition and favorism of west-dominated Union!").
Then you have usual of their weird decisions that are brought as example of overgrown bureaucracy without attempt to understand the reasoning behind it. "Hey, did you hear? Idiots in Brussels decided that snails are fish, what an idiots" the popular saying goes, meantime nobody cares that such decision saved EU from making up separate legislature for seafood farming and trade.
Then we have refugee crisis which is generally something considered result of poor decisions beind done in western EU side that it is trying shift the blame on across all of the union. The situation where in Poland is explictly named amongst the countries that show no solidarity while at same time we've accepted one million people from UA doesn't help neither.
With all of this going on, its easy for populist guys to gain widespread support. However situation in Poland where traditionalistic-populistic gov gained enough of majority to rule on its own is (IMHO) primarily the result of weak opposition, whose entire idea and programme was "we are saner than those other folk" but instead we've got liberal party apparently become traditionalist one with leaks after leaks of them doing disappointing deals with each other or private business. This effectively sank primary opposition party in polls.
They've also made some harsh steps to improve the grim future of our social security system via bumping retirement age as well as forcefully relocating bulk of private savings to the public fund.
Apparently there's trend in the polls going on for few weeks now giving them growing support, but its most likely the wave of popular disgust for current gov, which would be story from 2006 repeating itself. I'm unsure if they are capable of fixing things.
I think the problem is much deeper than that. There is not enough of a democratic process in the EU. It would have benefitted from an approach with much more direct democracy. Because then there is no favoritism, and people realize that they have it in their own hands.
But the quandry is that a more democratic EU requires constitutional change in most member states to cede sovereignty. The EU largely is the way it is as a result of a bunch of hacks making use of legislatures or even executives power to bind delegates of the executive under treaty to act in certain ways, or basically bind the legislatures to act in support of their executives.
The problem with this is that these hacks will continue to be used against the EU even when trying to reform them: It's easy to argue against handing sovereignty to an organisation with such a baroque decision-making process.
A lot of effort has gone into transitioning more powers to the EU parliament, but ultimately, it will be impossible to get where the EU ought to be in terms of which organs have which powers without very difficult processes in most of the member states.
I agree such a change is difficult, but I believe it's difficult precisely because it's currently not very democratic.
Deeply direct democracy is self-sustaining - people would agree to move over to a new system because it would give them more power than they have in the current parliamentary systems.
The problem as far as I see is the current political class (parliamentarians and people in the executive branch), which would lose power. And since this is who currently has the power, and it's always nearly impossible to make somebody give up power, that's the reason why this won't happen.
But Europe is in a state of crisis now, and maybe this crisis is great enough to motivate this class to move to a more open system.
If you think about it, the current indirect democracy (with parliaments and the electoral college etc) is a remnant of a time when a decision took days to travel through the whole land, and to be reasonably fast and decisive, you had to have them. Thanks to the internet, we could even go past such direct democracies like Switzerland and allow each citizen to vote at each bill, or if she didn't want to spend the time, leave that decision to a parliamentarian of her choosing, but with the option to take power again or give it to a different parliamentarian at any moment. Now that is true democracy. No back-hand deals, and no favoritisms anymore.
That's simply not true. The EU has over time handed more and more power away from the council and commission and to the parliament. There is a demonstrated will to hand more power to parliament at the cost of the council and commission and any treaty changes to do so (accompanied by according constitutional changes) would reduce sovereignty while reducing central control.
As it stands, the Treaty of Lisbon went about as far as it could in handing additional powers to the EU Parliament while triggering the minimal number of constitutional changes for member parliaments, and look at the circus that turned into. And that was first after the attempt at a constitution failed.
The centralisation you worry about already happened many years ago, and the sovereignty issue is now largely the blocker to devolving more that power to the EU parliament, and after the trouble getting the Treaty of Lisbon through there's little appetite to take another round anytime soon.
That Lisbon has given substantially sharpened teeth to Parliament has been demonstrated repeatedly, with both the Commission and Council of Ministers having been forced to backtrack or compromise in areas where they previously would have been able to do what they wanted.
Poland is post-communist country. During previous system it maintained many companies that weren't economically viable. Shipyards weren't build because it was economically viable to have shipyard there or there. They were build because Communists knew it was easy to guarantee mass employment by expanding heavy industry. This means that any polish city on our coastline with population required to staff shipyard got one. This shipyard would then employ between 20 to 50 thousand people on its own, as well as give employment for countless other people working in the region in shops supplying those shipyards or their workers. People from nearby smaller towns would then flock to larger towns to work here.
When system changed, so did the need for our fleets (in old system we've even maintained the Pacific Trade fleet and Pacific Shrimpfishing Fleets!) and in result the shipbuilding and maintenance services plummeted. It was same all across the board. Coal mining, steel mills, farming, weaving. Millions of people had to find their place in new reality. It wasn't surprise that people elected those promising heavy donations for what was left from first democratic's governments mass privatization, closures and sales. This meant polish taxpayers were keeping nonprofitable remnants of heavy industry in meantime being fed promises next governments about reforms coming in that will reduce the burden and sitting down by TV after work to watch in the news how our coal miners or shipbuilders strikes made current govt cave in, postpone cuts and offer another "mobilisation package" of millions of taxpayer money for keeping those industries alive.
This was business as usual until the year 2004 happened and Poland entered EU, which has changed the rules of the game and started hammering our govts for dishing so much taxpayers money at non-profitable private companies, that thus don't have to really care about being competitive with others.
How is this judged? Depends on region you are from. Some areas judge this in plus for EU because "apparently EU respects our money more than our own government".
But for other this is proof that EU wants to kill our heavy industry. Occasional news of EU letting same slip for some company in Germany or France is then blown out of proportion by the media to whole shipbulding in the west being taxpayer funded being allright while suspiciously its wrong when its polish govt helping polish companies.
So, I take that they say it's unfair because the government needs to help the shipyards to make them economically viable. Thank you for the detailed answer.
The refugee crisis and the sovereign debt crisis combined could ultimately dismantle the EU.
I think Poland's decision to stick with the zlot is a good one on the long term. Once you switch to the Euro you've surrendered control of your currency to Bruxelles and there is no going back.
Like Trump and Kim Jong Un feed off each other, ideology doesn't matter, two strongmen fighting each other strengthen each other's power in their respective country.
Do away with career politicians by effectively limiting their terms just as all demicracies do with presidents. But this is very hard to do in the curreny system without massive citizen initiative, because the politicians will never vote for such a measure.
If you are really worried about this then stop reading mainstream news propaganda, especially GW, TVN24, Newsweek. Poland leaving EU is the newest oposition narrative to discredit current government. That's all. People don't care about TK any longer so oposition created the new faked news.
An important step in world history, to be sure. However this decay of the Rule of Law is happening everywhere, not just in West Asia. People always turn towards authoritarianism when the going gets tough. One has only to look at the United States to see that the Rule of Law hasn't been respected for years: politicians and public officials perjuring themselves, intelligence agencies run amok, flagrant civil rights violations by police.
It's easy to justify one's actions, no matter how repugnant, against the spectre of some unknown enemy.
You honestly believe that if you compared 1967 USA to 2017 USA it would score WORSE on any of the categories you mentioned?
Politicians and public officials perjuring themselves (2 years from Nixon)
Intelligence agencies run amok (CIA toppling governments like they are made out of cards)
Flagrant civil rights violations by police (LOL no example needed here I should hope)
Please don't conflate better information with worse conditions. Things have never been better and they are getting better all the time (public shaming of politicians who say or do stupid shit, Snowden level leaks of intelligence agency bad behavior, federally recognized rights for gays in the military and marriage etc).
I don't want to start any flamewars, but how much responsibility does Islam have in this development? Are there any Islam-majority countries whose governments aren't garbage?
"Iran isn't a dictatorship."
- The 'Supreme Leader' begs to differ. "The armed forces, judicial system, state television, and other key governmental organizations are under the control of the Supreme Leader of Iran."
To be clear, Iran is not totalitarian, but definitely shades of dictatorship.
There are other democracies. Tunisia. Indonesia. There are also free elections in Morocco even if the king has a strong power. But pretty much every muslim country has to deal with a rising, if not dominant islamism in its various forms (of which AKP is one).
It really feels like a repeat of communism. The rise of an ideology across the world. It's not an homogeneous block. Various muslim ethnic groups hate each others, as did the Maoists, Stalinists, Trotskyist, etc. It happens pretty much everywhere there is a muslim population. Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Lybia, Egypt, Yemen, Somalia / Eritrea, Iraq, Syria, Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Indonesia, etc. Western leaders like to pretend that islamists are a minority of extremist groups but the reality is that pretty much anytime there has been a free-ish election in any of these countries, the islamists toped the polls, or got an outright majority.
When was the last time Pakistan elected an Islamist government? The last PPP government was pretty secular and the current one is also in the middle if not purely secular. The only time a truly Islamist government was formed in Pakistan was when US puppet dictator Zia ul Haq took over to fight the commies in Afghanistan. Pakistan has many different Islamist parties but they struggle to get even a handful of seats.
The Economist's democracy index disagrees, putting Azerbaijan into the "Authoritarian" index. And apprently their President is in power since 2003, which is usually not a good sign.
Iran certainly cannot be called a full democracy, the religious council has to approve candidacies for President - it isn't even clear if the current President Rouhani can pose as a candidate!
But there are some Muslim democracies working better, like Indonesia and Malaysia.
While your comment wasn't necessarily constructive in general, I'd ask you to consider that it is possible Islam can be used as a tool by "garbage" governments as a means of cementing their power.
North Carolina that place where the tribal leaders frequently condemn to death by stoning of by being burned alive woman that don't cover their head or that engage in any contact with some non family related male before marriage without any impedance from national or local government?
Or that North Carolina where homosexual people are flogged and hung if they repeat their "crime"?
Or North Carolina where if you declare yourself an atheist or join another religion your own father and brothers will cut your throat?
Oh, wait, nope, none of that actually happens in North Carolina and you comparing Islamic countries ruled by Sharia with North Carolina to try and tell people that Christian majority countries are just as bad is just some absolutely nonsensical hyperbole.
Not only Islam but also other religions can be used as a tool. Putin is investing heavily in Russian Orthodox, in Poland Catholicism can be used as such tool (and to my understanding has been already used).
Buddhism in Myanmar comes to mind as well, where Muslims are the oppressed party. And Judaism in Israel of course. Religion has always been a useful tool to control a populace — the more orthodox or fundamentalist the better; useful if you want to create a national identity from the ground up.
Isn't the hallmark of a healthy democracy a strict separation of church and state, regardless of the religion concerned?
This doesn't have much to do with Islam as much as just a mishmash of ultra-nationalism / pseudo-populism / authoritarianism. It's the same class of rules like Putin, Chavez, Trump. Usually these start with a group of people who are ignored in one way or another, or aren't in the good situation that they once were, but then a viable leader comes and speaks to their worries, and promises a better future. This leader represents some kind of identity characteristic that has been shunned in that society (islamist / not politically correct / strongman authoritarian / xenophobe), which draws the ire of everyone else and is criticized heavily in the media. This adds to their popularity among their supporters, overall polarization, and the collapse of sane political discourse, which gives them a better chance. Then it's all about "give them a chance", and after they get elected, sooner or later, they turn authoritarian when things get tough. They blame foreign countries for every problem they have, etc. Eventually they remove the separation of power, replace powerful government positions with their own people, solidify support among their base, and change laws to make competition harder. It happens so often that I get tired of seeing it over and over.
I think when 99% of the country is Muslim, your position is not very defensible. You talk about finding "a group of people who are ignored in one way or another". It just so happens that in Turkey this group of people is composed of rural dwellers and their chief concern is to force the urban women to cover up and to squash all of the urban dwelling infidels. This is the identity characteristic that Erdogan embraced, and to claim that Islam doesn't have much to do with it is misleading at best.
THe three largest Muslim majority countries are Indonesia, Paksitan and Bangladesh.
Bangladesh has been ruled by a woman (a long running rivalry between Sheikh Hasina and Khaleda Zia) since 1991 pretty much continuously.
All three have secular, and at least nominally democratic governments. Not without their problems, far from it. There are many reasons for these, domestic, colonial, Islamic neihbours, etc... but I think your comment betrays an extremely superficial view of the world.
Your comment being downvoted is just a symptom of how impossible discussion about islam religion has become, even in the west. What you're asking is exactly what the AKP party has been trying to answer in its own way, as stated in the article :
"Thinkers within the AKP — notably former Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu — harbored reservations about the compatibility of Western political and social institutions with their predominantly Muslim society. But the AKP leadership never acted upon this idea, choosing instead to undermine aspects of Ataturk’s legacy within the framework of the republic. That is no longer the case."
The fact that not a single muslim country can be called a democracy does raise some question about the religion itself and its current set of values.
The downvotes are due to the ignorance and prejudice implicit in the comment.
The AKP is an Islamic party and we've been discussing it's threat to secularism and democracy in Turkey vigorously for many years. The supposed (self-)censorship of which you speak doesn't exist.
For the record, elections are coming up in Indonesia, the largest muslim country. And yes conservative Islam and Islamism are a threat to democracy in many democratic Muslim countries. Which is why it is opposed by moderate democratic muslims (like the 49% that voted no in Turkey).
Turkey was assassinated in 1923 now it's coming back to life again , you should stop the hatred and accept people's will and choice nobody interfere in the West why don't you just mind your own business!
In 90s in Turkey, military was securing that country was non-clerical. When president wanted to bring sharia he received call from head of military saying that he have 24 hours to resign or army will act. No one is securing this now, that's why turkey have new Sultan. Modern turkey society will be transformed same way like it happened in Iran 40 years ago. Shame that coup d'etat was so amateurish in Turkey, now it's too late.
The attempted coup was from an islamist faction not secular one, I know it is more convenient for the west to think so but reality is not that white and black. Secular forces in the army, media and state were purged in by a coalition of erdogan and the gulenist(who attempted the coup) from 2007 to 2013. No one did care back then. What's happening in Turkey has nothing to do with religion, yes it is a huge step back for Turkey but we'll have sharia law sooner here in Brussels than in Turkey.
No one is denying it in Turkey even Erdogan's strongest critics. The fact that Erdogan used this opportunity to strengthen his position doesn't make it less likely. I really don't know what we have to prove it but this kind of dismissive attitude is really exasperating. Maybe they should've left some signatures and selfies.
Well, Turkey represents the dream of what every muslim wants and been like that before attaturk denounced caliphat.
Just leave the people the chance to state/express what they want (democratically) without coups that we always suffer from. When the people choice doesn't go with the west the unleash their military pets and force a coup.
So just because Turks opted for an "Islamist" government, Western media have been mourning for hours. Had it been someone like Sissy then everyone was going to praise about it.
I can laugh at the hypocrisy of Western media and it's support to.. Democracy.
PS: Thanks for down vote, I can understand this unexpected results are not making many happy, that's OK. I was not happy when Trump became President but then I respect the choice of voters :-)
You say they're hypocritical but you're using a hypothetical (el-Sisi). Maybe if you want to say the Western media is hypocritical, you should use an example of a non-Muslim dictator being praised.
Besides, even if Erdogan had been Christian, the end result would be the same: he now has fewer controls on his power, fewer people he needs to make happy to stay in power, and more ways to entrench himself in the Turkis government.
What all he is doing, one can like or dislike but Turks are supporting him. Why irrelevant people are worried? Americans selected Trump, I definitely did not like it but then I respect their choice. You should do the same.
I seriously doubt that. It's not going to take 8 years for this Russia shit to hit the fan and him get impeached. I'd be surprised if it took 4, tbh. And I certainly don't see him winning reelection with the abysmally low approval ratings and failure to deliver on even the most simple of campaign promises.
Hasn't "Western media" been hyper critical of nationalist figures like Erdogan in the "Christian World" (e.g.: Trump, Le Pen)? I honestly don't see the hypocrisy, seems pretty consistent to me.
Moreover, pknerd asserts that the Western media would support el-Sisi for acting in a way similar to Erdogan. I disagree with that analogy, but nevertheless the NYT absolutely criticizes el-Sisi! [0]
"Enabling Egypt's President Sisi, an Enemy of Human Rights"
"The U.S. Should Not Be Egypt's Accomplice "
"Trump Shifts Course on Egypt, Praising Its Authoritarian Leader"
"Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, the defense minister and commander in chief of the armed forces, seized power in July 2013 and outlawed protests."
> Yet to find such country. We re not talking about bookish knowledge. World witnessed what's been happening with Blacks in US and Muslims in India.
You know about these events because something resembling an independent and strong media exists in both of those countries. The lack of which is also the reason you hardly ever hear about the persecution of non-Muslims in Pakistan and Bangladesh.
Erdogan has already cleansed the media off his opponents. That pillar of democracy is already down.
German here. I couldn't care less what religion Erdogan claims to represent. I'm not concerned because of Islam. I'm concerned because I'm literally witnessing a repeat of events that have been burned into my memory since elementary school.
The extent of democracy in Turkey 1921-2017 is being rather idealized by a lot of these articles. It was for large periods a quasi-democracy with a strong role for the military (on a few occasions explicitly as military dictators, on many more occasions less explicitly). And beyond the military, also a strong role for paramilitaries.
In this referendum, for example, the ultra-nationalist party MHP played a strong role, supporting Erdogan. Along with their notorious neo-fascist paramilitary units, the Grey Wolves, which attacked "no" demonstrations, especially any linked to Kurdish groups. But these militias aren't a new development. They're decades old, and have had various political roles over the years, usually linked to the "democratic" establishment. Historically the MHP often carried out dirty work for the Kemalists, especially operations that the military didn't want to do officially, like attacks on leftist intellectuals and Kurdish cultural figures. What's changed is that the MHP has switched alliances from working with them to working with the AKP, at least for now, which is part of an ongoing reorientation of political alliances. A weird alliance though, since AKP are more Islamist and MHP don't really care about Islam.
As an American I have no idea about the veracity of the GP claims or your claims that they are false. Can others step in and make HN great again by having a cool, reasoned debate about the history of thr Turks within the confines of their democratic endeavors?
I would like to know more. I've never understood the parliamentarian system. I'm use to a presidential system with checks and balances.
OT, but parliamentarian systems with first-past-the-post election of MPs seem to work very well. That's basically the entire anglo-saxon world minus the U.S.
Advantages of the parliamentarian system over presidential include:
- short campaigns where the parties run, rather than personalities
- short campaigns because the PM can call snap elections any time
- parliament is usually not adversarial towards the government
- elections are less frequent
Disadvantages:
- parliament is usually not adversarial towards the govt
- elections are less frequent
What I'd like to see is a way for the House of the U.S. Congress, and the POTUS, to be able to do something similar to calling snap elections: accelerate the election schedule by shortening the terms of currently-sitting congress-critters and the POTUS. (Presidential term limits would have to be adjusted to an amount of time rather than number of terms.) I think this would give us the best of both worlds. It would give Congress a huge check on the POTUS and vice-versa: whenever POTUS is very unpopular Congress could call elections, and whenever POTUS is very popular POTUS could call elections. And campaign seasons would be much shorter: presidential campaigns would not be two years long, but weeks or months. But a new primary system would be needed, that's for sure.
If you want a source, download Camfrog and go talk to any Turkish person (of which there are TONS) and find out for yourself.
This whole citation needed garbage needs to stop. Go find the information from the obvious source, or don't, your choice. The burden of proof is a BS burden and is an excuse for people to not exercise their brains and SUPPOSED education.
> If you want a source, download Camfrog and go talk to any Turkish person (of which there are TONS) and find out for yourself.
Just like I wouldn't trust the average American to be able to meaningfully distinguish truth from misinformation (do I even trust myself to?), I wouldn't trust "any Turkish person" to do so.
You're making a strong, blanket claim, which you say is easily verifiable. Back it up.
I gave you the means of verification. It's not my problem if you are not using it. (BTW many of the Turkish people on Camfrog are directly in the military.)
I have no idea what to believe of it, if anything. Kemalists supporting AKP?! That one is hard to believe, unless they've accepted that they're out of power and want to curry some -- that's a possibility, I guess.
What is clear is that Turkey is sliding towards dictatorship with an islamist feel. Nothing good may come of it.
The Kemalists are all gone from the military, so expect nothing from that department.
You may very well be right. I don't know the situation well enough to tell. But downvoted because you called out gp for lies without giving a single counter-argument.
The military are what historically kept Turkey from sliding into the abyss on several occasions. Erdogan recognized this and got rid of those who could have stepped in after the 'coup' last year because they would not have stood for it.
Bingo. The military was organized not only for defense but to specifically prevent things like this - a religion-driven dictator - from taking over the government.
Anyone that's been paying attention to Turkey for the past decade knew of this. It's one of the reasons I hang on Camfrog, the Turkish are prevalent there (although typically the ones you encounter are just trying to harass women into displaying some skin. Mention politics and their attention changes drastically.)
I'm not going to debate the dictatorship part of your comment, but is there a islamist government (elected or not) that has been good for human rights - or any religion based government for that matter?
Not really. But military safeguards pretty much worked in secular Turkey. In establishing those lies Mustafa Kemal's genius.
Keep in mind that this referenfum was organized under a state of emergency imposed after last year's failed coup. So its democratic nature is rather questionable. The No campaigners were misrepresented and harassed.
Is there any government good for human rights? I'm thinking about Iran, which is obviously a horrible place now for human rights, but it wasn't exactly a wonderland before the Islamic revolution either.
> but it wasn't exactly a wonderland before the Islamic revolution either.
No, the Shah was pretty brutal. Besides SAVAK there were many other really bad episodes, one of which I read about some years ago but have never forgotten about as the epitome of decadency:
Use some nuance and common-sense, rather than jump to an over-simplistic, extreme argument. If said military had an alternative leader better than Stalin or Hitler, that's an obvious improvement.
Turkey is a peculiar case. Turkey's post-Ataturk government has (usually) been more secular than the United States (to the point of--at times--making it illegal for women to cover their heads). It was quite a pleasant place for non-muslims to visit, e.g. alcohol was legal and widely available, and Israelis routinely went on holiday to the Turkish coast.
In the past, when the Turkish government has veered toward theocracy, the military has stepped in, restored democracy, and stepped back. The coup didn't work this time, and its failure made the theocracy stronger. I fear that secular Turkey is over.
Believing that a secular state de-facto ruled by the military is the best option for Turkey is certainly a viewpoint people have. I mostly object to calling that situation "democracy".
Turkey is not "de-facto ruled by the military." The military has historically taken orders from elected civilian leaders as long as those leaders embrace democracy and equality and the principles of Ataturk. When the civilian leaders veer too far from what they were elected to do, the military steps in and stops it, then retreats. Turkey's military is like the US Supreme Court; it's a check on the ambitions of fanatical would-be dictators who want to divide the country and pit groups against one another. This is certainly not how military coups usually work, which is why I said Turkey was a special case.
(Except this time the coup failed and the dictator won.)
What? Seriously man! let me get it right. You think that people shouldn't be allowed to choose the Ideologies of their home country. That they shouldn't strive for their freedom and fight corruption and poverty. And you think that military coups and secular leadership persecution is the way to go for non western countries?
This is spot on. Not only that, but Turkey always had a tough time taking the final step into being a "true" representative democracy with similar characteristics to western democracies. From the seculars point of view, they was always worried of islamists taking over. From the nationalists point of view (who have had a lot of overlap with secularists historically), they were always afraid of kurds getting representation, which they saw as being separatist, and being secretly backed by foreign governments who benefit from division (kinda like Iran, Latin America, etc). In either case, whether you think it's justified or not, some groups got denied rights that would have been given in other countries.
Erdogan and AKP's political innovation (I think) was supporting a strong muslim-nationalist identity that consolidated support from both camps (thus denying them to the opposition) and created a very coherent story for why people should support him.
He also garnered a LOT of support from the international scene, especially western Europe and the US, when he got elected. It got hailed as a step forward for democracy, who willfully ignored and dismissed Erdogan's much more shady history. And, admittedly, Erdogan did start out as a right-of-center leader, which helped people suspend some hangups. He made a lot of changes that helped his base in the long run - easier access to stable government jobs, better public services, etc. Meanwhile, eventually, the secular camp's worries would be proven correct, of course, but in a slightly different way than they anticipated.
Re: MHP, it is mostly just grasping for relevance in an age where its voter base could just as easily go to AKP and CHP, which would reduce its overall support to less than 10% of the country, which would mean that they don't get seats in parliament (a law passed during the secular era to deny representation leftist / "communist" / kurdish / extremist groups, depending on who you ask).
The US wants Erdogan in power. It gives us another convenient target later on whereas before we had no major reason to bother with Turkey. Turkey is rife with resources, from oil to gems. I say this as I look at a slab of agate cut from a $6K chunk of Turkish tube agate - http://i.imgur.com/dYyaTkL.jpg
Turkey, just like Iran, will never be a convenient target. It has a population way bigger than Iraq and Afghanistan combined, it has a massive, modern, western-equipped military [1] and a huge amount of geopolitical leverage due to its control of the Dardanelles as well as European-Africa-Asia migration routes.
No sane US military leader would attack even if they created a new Sultanate and aligned with Russia or Iran.
If the US took over Turkey, its natural resources would be worth maybe 1% of the US GDP, and it would fact an unending insurgency that would require several million US troups to keep under control, and lead to thousands of US soldiers being killed every year. Nobody in the US is stupid enough to want that.
The US wants a friendly government in Turkey because its location is very desirable for the US's ability to stage and project military power in the Middle East.
One crucial difference is that the military juntas of the past always gave the power back to the civilians after setting the country back to its “factory settings." The most brutal of the coups, the one in 1980 in which about 50,000 people were jailed/tortured, created the constitution that was in force until now. It was the checks and balances in that constitution that were completely dismantled yesterday.
In contrast, Erdogan is not the type to leave power peacefully.
Your analysis implies far right fractions had a big role in this referendum, which to be honest does not ring correct, on the contrary, even though leader of MHP asked to support yes vote, they overwhelmingly voted no, something effectively destroying his leader position, and perhaps his party.
Sincerely, as an European this makes me uneasy. Not because of Erdogan or Turkey itself, that's not what takes my sleep. But for knowing that the spiral into madness in Turkey now seems unstoppable and in 5/10/15 years it will blow up and, yet again, Europe will be called to take care of their problems and, yet again, be blamed for not doing enough.
Once again we will have to open our borders to this good people running away from a war and once again we will have to pretend that the majority of them didn't actually choose this way of life by supporting some dictator/ideology whose main ideologic pillars are xenophoby against people that don't follow their religion their way (Kurds) and a return to islamism in some form of Sharia.
Some part of your thinking should consider how much both Syria and the current development in Turkey results from EU actions. I wouldn't spend all my time pointing fingers at others, but also spend some time thinking what we've done and could've done differently.
People like you gravely mix two very different concepts: not giving even more help to someone with being at fault for that someone's problems.
We can/should help those in need and in fact we do help those in need, but don't put the blame on us for those people grave conditions in the first place.
We have actually part in creating the Syrian war, and we are also one of the sources of why Turkey makes this political swing now.
For instance we should have known that if we don't consider Turkey as a partner, that they will at some point say "x you" and look for support from others. We could've also considered how we can take care of the refugees instead of dropping them on weaker governments. And we could have also considered how to treat Greece like a part of our community instead of sucking them more and more dry, which leaves all other fringe EU countries wondering how they will be treated if they ever get weaker.
Oh, so it's our fault that we asked for decades (while putting a lot of money there in EU lost funds) that:
- Turkey brought their legal institutions to the modern times
- that Turkey showed more respect for democratic and humanistic principles
- that Turkey respected more the civil rights of their citizens
- that Turkey respected their ethnic minorities (like the Kurds)
- Turkey recognized a member of the EU as an actual country (Cyprus).
And then, after Turkey failed yet, and yet again to address all those problems and we told them patiently yet again, that they needed to address those problems and they still didn't, they decided they are not going to really try and reverted the little work they had done.
And you come and blame the EU for wanting Turkey to become a country that actually respects the right of its own citizens.
What about Albania, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine. If they are not offered the unconditional membership the EU will be responsible for all bad things which will happen there?
Worth noting is the extent of power held by the Canadian PM:
> As such, the prime minister, supported by the Office of the Prime Minister (PMO), controls the appointments of many key figures in Canada's system of governance, including the governor general, the Cabinet, justices of the Supreme Court, senators, heads of crown corporations, ambassadors to foreign countries, the provincial lieutenant governors, and approximately 3,100 other positions.
There are elections, but the Government is able to change how Canadians vote and the rules regarding voting and campaigning; and there is the Sovereign, but she'd only intervene in three most extreme situations.
The Elections Act can be, and has been, amended by parliament. In a majority government with a strong whip, this means the PMO can effectively amend it as they please.
The act defines how we vote, the constitution only requires that the vote method be reasonably democratic.
That'd be super chilling if the various legislative bodies didn't act as a check on that through confirmation requirements and limits on executive authority.
You know, like Turkey used to have. Before yesterday.
Worth also noting, is the extent of power granted to those who don't agree with the Prime Minister.
> the commons may revoke its confidence in an incumbent prime minister and Cabinet or caucus revolts can quickly bring down a serving premier and even mere threats of such action can persuade and/or compel a prime minister to resign his post, as happened with Jean Chrétien.
> The Reform Act of 2014 codifies the process by which a caucus may trigger a party leadership review and, if necessary, choose an interim leader.
> Either the sovereign or his or her viceroy may oppose the prime minister's will in extreme, crisis situations.
Also what happens if the ruling party does not have a majority and they lose the coalition that gives them enough seats to rule?
Sadly it's the time of the populists, racists and fascists all over.
RIP Austria (OVP), long time ago. RIP France (soon, NF - Le Pen). RIP Germany (soon AfD). RIP Holland (soon Vilgers), RIp Russia, RIP Hungary. In similar lines - Maybe RIP USA too. (Trump).
I know this is the line being hyped by anglophone newspapers, so I don't blame you for believing it, but we're talking about a party which has peaked at around 12% in national polls. Every single other notable party despises the AfD and is completely unwilling to consider a coalition with them.
It would take a small miracle to dislodge the current CDU/CSU/SPD grand coalition at all (about 66% combined), and the only remotely plausible alternative would be a shift to the left with SPD/Greens/Left. Nobody is talking about the AfD.
Hey, you wanna make a bet on that? I'd love to win easy money from gullible people.
The only way Le Pen wins is if she gets an absolute majority in the first round.
She doesn't win the second round.
She doesn't win the legislatives.
The National Front is nothing.
Maybe not this time, but she still keeps the surprise element. - but the franchise "Le Pen" gets stronger and stronger - how long will the "republican alliance" resist is a question especially if emigration poses to "disturb" the people.
In both France and Germany the left wing is actually much more likely to gain government power than the right wing. Both is bad for a EU, but if you only worry about the right wing you can probably calm down at this point.
I'd say more RIP USA than RIP <western european government> for now.
Well, he tried aligning Turkey to Europe, paving the way for EU membership, visa-free travel, and even shot down Russian's plane to show his European alignment. That was the crest of the Western wave for him. Once he saw that EU is just a pipe dream, and after through discussion with Putin, he decided on a new way, returning his people back to the Islamic roots, purging opposition, and controlling ethnic groups, especially Kurds, who pose a big problem considering they are over 10% of the population, and would eventually want independence, hence Kurdish activity in Syria.
Sad outcome. Especially with 99% or so voting turnout, and such a close result. 97-99% voting turnout on such a large scale is a classic telltale sign of fabrication balloting, and was standard since at least CCCP, just like in Crimea independence referendum. With such a close result it would mean he was losing 70/30 by vote on a standard 70% turnout, but padding his numbers by 30% with his ballots was sufficient for him to maintain grip and win. Each successive referendum will make him stronger, unleashing his full potential without pesky opposition "provocateurs".
I would say he was set on this path long before he shot down that Russian plane.
Turnout was 86%. Vote manipulation is very likely, but it wasn't done that blatantly. More blatant was the suppression of the opposition during the campaign.
It's a bit a similar scenario as with Russia: There might have been a moment in the past at which the West (or in the case of Turkey, specifically the EU) missed the opportunity to successfully pull the country towards a deep integration with the West/Europe.
However, since no one can replay history, no one can be sure that this actually would have happened. Erdogan would still have been himself, with the same corrupt attitude and religiously fanatic mind.
I've read a fair share of articles about his rise and background and was left with the impression that he always has been rather religiously conservative. But maybe that's the wrong conclusion. On the other hand, how can you be sure? It is hard to know whether someone is a religious fanatic or just uses it as a tool.
"If the skies and the ground were to open against us. If floods and volcanoes were to burst, We will not turn from our mission. My reference is Islam."
"Our minarets are our bayonets, Our domes are our helmets, Our mosques are our barracks."
A muslim country joining the EU is a pipe dream. The days of Ottoman rule are hardly forgotten in the Balkans. There is zero chance you'd have Turkey, countries from former Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Romania, not to mention Greece and Hungary in the same union. Just having Greece and Turkey in the EU is a laughable prospect.
Having France and Germany in the EU was a laughable prospect in 1945. Having eastern European countries in the EU was a laughable prospect in 1989. Circumstances change.
Hum. There are people who think he used the EU membership as a way of leverage against the military. Turkey couldn't be part of the EU with this military threat, so it had to tame its military to be accepted as a modern democracy. This enabled Erdogan to progressively regain control over the army helped with the pressure from the EU, eliminating the remaining counter-power to islamism in Turkey. I think the EU has been a useful idiot in this process. Now a EU membership is out of question on the EU side and Turkey doesn't show any sign of being interested anymore anyway.
You think he walked a geopolitical he planned long ago ? With news showing putin had influences on Trump long ago too, it seems we're witnessing a very nice international long con.
"Democracy is just the train, but not the final destination.", is a AKP slogan I remember from a documentary on Erdogans long road to power.
I would also support the opinion that Erdogan used the EU integration process to selectively weaken the kemalist/military grip on Turkey's institutions. While you could point out that the EU were a 'useful idiot', IMHO there was never a realistic chance of Turkey joining the EU. The reasons are multifold, most important ones being the resistance of the EU population in major EU countries such as Germany, France and Poland. In that regard, I think, EU politics were not on an honest basis and just a game.
I had also assumed that Turkey's occupation of Cyprus, its refusal to take responsibility for the Armenian genocide, and its antipathy toward the Kurds were additional dealbreakers for EU membership.
"There are people who think he used the EU membership as a way of leverage against the military"
Those people are obviously not Turkish. The military, by its founding from Ataturk, gives ZERO damns about membership, in fact they were pretty much established to STOP various forms of state 'membership' including religious.
The EU accession project was abandoned long before Syria, when it became clear a lot of EU countries (Germany above all) were not going to allow it for fear of increased migration numbers. Since then, Erdogan dropped any pretense of liking the democratic process and the rule of law, which were supposed to be strengthened as precondition of joining the EU. He used the real issue of corruption in the secular army as an excuse to strengthen his own position.
The kurdish issue is a long-standing problem and Erdogan uses them for classic "pressure management ": whenever he's under threat, he whips out the kurdish enemy to solidify his support. He's done this pretty much continuously since taking power, making a bit of progress on peace efforts to keep up appearances then cracking down whenever he needs a popularity boost. Like black and red terrorist groups in '70s Italy, kurdish groups are likely infiltrated at all levels by authorities.
Erdogan's wobbling on Syria had little to do with alignment with Putin or the US, and more to do with him initially betting on ISIS then backtracking once it became clear US and Russia weren't going to accept it anymore. The Russian plane shot down and subsequent apology was the end of that particular game, nothing to do with long-term alignment. Turkey had already denied their US bases for a number of operations before then.
Erdogan is not a pawn or even a solid ally to this or that front, he just plays his own fascist game.
> and even shot down Russian's plane to show his European alignment
The first part of your comment denotes a misunderstanding of the situation.
Turkish forces shot down the Russian plane in response to Russia's bombing of the Turkmen (Turkish minority in Syria) rebels. Turkey/US stance in Syria is also divided because the US supports Kurdish groups, just not those aligned with the PKK.
EU membreship is achieved by democracy, checks and ballances, economic stability, not by shooting down Russian planes. EU officials go out of their way to avoid conflict with Russia. Many were for less tougher sanctions than those imposed by the Obama administration.
You are right about Turkey joining the EU being a pipe dream. Turkey's alliances should be with other countries with similar cultures (Turkmenistan, Kazahstan, etc.).
> Turkey’s Islamists have long venerated the Ottoman period. In doing so, they implicitly expressed thinly veiled contempt for the Turkish Republic. For Necmettin Erbakan, who led the movement from the late 1960s to the emergence of the Justice and Development Party (AKP) in August 2001, the republic represented cultural abnegation and repressive secularism in service of what he believed was Ataturk’s misbegotten ideas that the country could be made Western and the West would accept it. Rather, he saw Turkey’s natural place not at NATO’s headquarters in Brussels but as a leader of the Muslim world, whose partners should be Pakistan, Malaysia, Egypt, Iran, and Indonesia.
Kemalist Turkey was authoritarian from its infancy, with the military establishment in a central political role. Throughout its history, any attempt for liberalization / democratization, respect for human / minority rights etc. was quashed. This domestic and international behavior of Turkey was tolerated by its western allies (namely US and UK) because of its friendly orientation towards these powers. See for example the various coups and juntas, jailing of opposition and journalists, banning of the minority rights (e.g. language) of Kurds, the invasion and continuous occupation of Cyprus, etc.
The unknown factor from a western perspective is how this new Turkey will align itself (or not) with western interests, not a sudden sympathy for fellow Turks.
The sad reality of the muslim world today is that if you let the people vote freely, it votes for the islamists. So you kind of have to choose between islamists elected democratically or a secular dictatorship. I am not sure which I prefer.
As a Syrian, Turkey is the most country that welcomes (and still welcoming) us between its people.
All other countries (except some like Sudan) doesn't require a visa for Syrians, while all other countries require one.
The world still doesn't understand this war we have and think it's a civil war.
People can't imagine that the few news they hear is true, they think exaggerated news.. believe me, it is not exaggerated at all, the opposite is true.
Children died from chemical weapons, a father has held his two twins after they died, all of this are happening to Syrians, and no one cares.
For Syrians, Turkey has done a lot and we appreciate it a lot, and we pray that Turkey stays safe in all aspects.
You'r aware that the biggest EU nations made a deal with Turkey to take most of the refugees? Turkey doesn't do it for fun, but because they get paid for it.
I.e., if you want to thank anybody, thank the previous governments of western EU countries (not the current ones) that educated their public enough to force the governments into doing anything. Without fear of public opinion all countries would've just shut their borders.
It seems somewhat premature to proclaim the death of Turkey, just because they've expanded the powers of a democratically elected office. I often wonder if the system of gridlock (ie, checks and balances) found in many democracies, actually lead to better outcomes than having a system that is free of gridlock but still accountable to voters through free elections.
It's more symbolic than that. Turkey as a secular state was founded by Kemal Ataturk and many of the things that were put in place to maintain stability and to keep things reasonably fair will be abolished or have been abolished.
So in that sense it is accurate to claim this is the death of Turkey, even though the land borders aren't going anywhere.
Just like Persia preceded what we know as Iran today Turkey will now change into something that you would not recognize as the country it was only two decades ago.
The people that have means and/or skills are fleeing the country in droves (or have been placed under arrest or are afraid to even voice their misgivings). It's a very sad affair.
I'm absolutely in favour of having a checks&balances governemnt, because I'm certain that my opinion and quality of life gets valued most in this government form. However, that doesn't mean dictatorships can't be stable, at least for some time, and at least for some people. So, I have to agree that it's weird to totally overinterpret a cultural shift as doom for the country.
Newspapers in Western Europe do the same. Just yesterday I've read an article that first asked something like "Well, what will happen with the country now?" and then basically just went on to explain again that more power is left in the hands of the president, not what the (supposedly negative) effects ought to be.
I wouldn't vote in Erdogan's favor if I'd be Turkish, but he's still a smart politician in my eyes. With the uncertainty of having to deal with all the refugees, with decreasing support and protection from the EU, with growing power in the East (Russia, China) taking more control may be the only thing he can do to get his ship through the storms.
A system of checks and balances does a much better job of avoiding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority than a free-election but gridlock-less system (which is by definition much closer to direct democracy than a checks-and-balances system).
Avoiding that can be quite beneficial. The real question is what you give up to get that benefit, right?
It seems to me that what you give up is largely the ability to pass legislation that is only favored by a small majority of the population. Things that have overwhelming support still end up getting passed in checks-and-balances systems, generally.
I, personally, consider the inability to pass things with small majority support a good thing, especially given statistical fluctuations in such support....
It seems like most of these right wing leaders with authoritarian tendencies are ejected primarily by poorer, rural people with less than average education. I wonder why this is? Is it because they are hit harder by economic problems? During time of economic struggle we seem more likely to elect leaders like this. Or does it have to do with a lack of education? Maybe there is yet another reason?
Rural people voting to give their civil influence away.
By putting all power in one hands, making future elections meaningless and reducing power of civil actions.
Why does this happen? Because in e.g. USA, rural areas are anti-big-government and anti-power-centralization. Which is exactly opposite.
yeah, that is why poor Americans voted for Trump to cut taxes on wealthiest and to make healthcare less affordable.
USA is no difference. People are the same all over world.
I think the reason is that they are the easiest group to manipulate, due to their lack of education.
Somehow a lot of folks in rural US believe that:
* Billionaire real estate developer from wealthy family, who grew up in Queens and lives in Manhattan (both are the opposite of rural America), understands their problems and "feels their pain".
* Manufacturing jobs are coming back.
* Coal mines are coming back.
* Having less health care is more freedom.
* There are death panels in ACA (Obamacare).
List goes on and on...
It is easy to manipulate the uneducated people. That is one of the main reasons that a lot of politicians have vested interest in keeping general population uneducated. Educated people will never elect them, their corrupt friends or their spoiled kids (who are gonna run for office soon). That is why they do not want to increase spending on education.
I can't believe they changed rules after the voting has started. These new rule allows people to vote even if their envelopes don't have seal. This is against constitution. It clearly states that these votes will not be count if they don't have seals.
1.5 Million vote envelope don't have seals. Who knows where they came from?
I was curious about this as well, and looked around a little. I am not sure where you got these numbers, but apparently technically this is not a deal breaker (And not against constitution at all):
I think it is important to note that voting resulted in Yes by %51-%48 which is so close.
3 biggest cities in Turkey voted for No. These 3 cities are having the most educated people. As long as people get more educated and it easier for them to reach for knowledge, it is going to get better for Turkey.
274 comments
[ 1.9 ms ] story [ 249 ms ] threadOnce you lose independence of the judiciary system you basically lost the last remaining checks and balances. This is why I never bought into the threat of fascism from Trump. He would have to make similar changes which would never get off the ground. The US system has been shown to work exactly as intended on a number of occasions in the last two months.
The problem is the executive state has grown significantly over the last few decades in the US. But that was hardly unique to Trump.
If anything the main issue is the presidents ability to conduct 'military actions' without congress. That seems like a major risk.
But compared to Turkey the situation is far better in other western states. This is one situation where saying "USA DOES IT TOO!" can't be used to dismiss this out of hand (or EU countries in this case). And even if they did it wouldn't make it a good idea.
A centralized presidential system does make it easier to have all sorts of abuse, from which no western democracy is immune.
[1]https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affaire_Fillon
I have followed French politics for too long to believe in coincidences.
So far, there are no proofs. You also have to realize that our political class is prone to backstabbing, much much more than any other country. Everyone has dirt on everyone in the same party. So far, the Fillon revelations rather seem like they're coming from LR, not the PS or Hollande.
In term of proof, it has kind of been confirmed by Hollande himself indirectly. In his interview book "Un president ne devrait pas dire ca", he mentioned that Fillon contacted him after he took office, encouraging him to dig more dirt on Sarkozy, otherwise they will be facing him at the next election. Hollande then praised his own virtue by pretending he did not proceed and Fillon denied ever asking that. However whether this discussion happened or not, and whether Hollande did it or not, what Hollande confirmed indirectly is that it was a perfectly reasonable request from an insider of French politics (a former prime minister) to get the president to use the justice system against his opponent.
> As such, the prime minister, supported by the Office of the Prime Minister (PMO), controls the appointments of many key figures in Canada's system of governance, including the governor general, the Cabinet, justices of the Supreme Court, senators, heads of crown corporations, ambassadors to foreign countries, the provincial lieutenant governors, and approximately 3,100 other positions.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Minister_of_Canada
The bigger issue is their failure to add some context to make the comparison actually interesting. Like they could say that Canadian Prime Ministers are rarely removed from office (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prime_ministers_defeat... ). Nevermind that it has been done a number of times in an orderly fashion.
I think many Canadians took for granted just how much process was informal tradition followed on honour and not binding rules.
'Exactly as intended' and the growth of executive influence and the federal government as a whole seem rather contradictory. And what's unique is Trump himself.
The next claim you had an issue with:
> The US system has been shown to work exactly as intended on a number of occasions in the last two months.
That's why it's not contradictory. The courts have (finally) been reining in the president. (It would have been nice if it started a decade or two ago, but Trump is, as you say, something of a unique threat, and that may be concentrating minds in the judiciary.)
http://anayasadegisikligi.barobirlik.org.tr/Anayasa_Degisikl...
It can't be done, not in Turkey. Appointing judges is in the hands of the Supreme Board of Judges and Prosecutors. The president appoints half of the 12-member board and the parliament, most of whom are Erdogan supporters, appoints the other half.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016–17_Turkish_purges
But contrast that ideal with the reality that the government had already purged thousands of judges to destroy their independence and disempower then.
France is not even close to what Edrogan is doing. Yes, our system gives a lot of power to the president, more than in many countries. However, the prime minister is picked amongst the majority in the national assembly, and there are many, many countermeasures to ensure the president doesn't go wild, even if some recent presidents have tried to erode that (namely, Sarkozy).
The reach of any one person without an amplifier of sorts (traditional media, facebook popularity, etc), is essentially zero; Even in the extremely unlikely case that you've changed the minds of 1,000 people you talked to (because to change 1,000 people's mind and vote, you need to speak to 20,000), it's still a rounding error.
It will make you feel good that you tried while you're at it, yes. It will also demonstrate how powerless you are if the results go against your wishes (or falsely make you think you contributed if they go your way).
It's the same as fighting the centralization of the web, the big brothering of facebook/nsa, etc - you have to mobilize people to act, many of them. And sadly, it's very rarely possible or within one's power.
If you don't frame your life in a way that whoever wins matters to you very less, you are doing something wrong. If that is already the case, your vote doesn't count at all. It's one vote. The chance of your vote actually affecting the outcome of the election is so small that you might as well buy a lottery ticket instead.
If however, you have the power to convince a large enough group of people to sway the election to one side or another, you should sell some of that influence to whoever is offering more money or favors to you.
The answer is it does matter, and that you have such little influence is a failure of the system. I'm not talking about one vote, it's that some individuals have more influence over politicians due to their campaign donations. That is unacceptable.
The answer once again is get money out of politics.
You can only take money out of politics after you've taken money out of politics
The answer is not to suppress the leftist vote and care about the working class' concerns.
Have you been to Okotogon or other protests? I have and it was really inspiring to see that many young faces around. I Support all efforts of making Fidesz the least appealing party. That's probably all we can do if violence is not considered.
Also, the US government wouldn't nuke their own people. If they did, they won't target Florida. Since those are off the table, we're talking about a traditional war. As we've seen with Afghanistan, the US military doesn't know how to fight an asymetric war. Good luck trying to get people that live in the hundreds of square miles of swamp.
Arms are a big factor. Europe is at far greater risk of authoritarian regimes because their people are effectively disarmed. A few single shot shotguns won't do much. If only their population had ready access to AK47s, AR 15's or event bullpups out of Israel.
I think this bears emphasis: Pretty much every crime report provided to or made by the police within Florida, silly or sublime, is available to the public [1]. This is a gold mine for people who want to run a "stranger than fiction" web site. It could distort one's view of what Florida is like.
[1] http://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/how-floridas-proud-open-go...
It's better to allow people liberty than to take it away in the name of safety. It's better to realize that anyone can make highly damaging weapons at home (looking at you Boston Bomber).
I find this ironic since they are not part of the Eurozone. Their economy is much less at risk from mismanagement in Greece than France, the Netherlands or Germany.
it's democracy, you need to wait for next elections
In a representative democracy, you need to wait for the next elections. In a parliamentarian democracy, a vote of no confidence can trigger elections (like Canada in 2011) or the Prime Minister can ask the Crown to dissolve parliament and call elections (like the UK in 2010). This can lead to situations like 3 elections within 5 years (Canada 2006, 2008, 2011). In the US, federal elections are every two years, with the whole House being up for election and 1/3 of the Senate while the President is up every other Congressional election.
The "no alternative" is a lame excuse, Momentum is coming up and even giving a vote to MKKP would be better than staying home.
I think spending time to think about how to best answer that question is probably the best thing one can do to prevent similar events.
We are in the middle of this strange global event and you can tell from the profusion of explanations that no one knows what the reason is.
-- loss of confidence in institutions?
-- wealth gap?
-- tech enabled cultural sabotage?
-- "globalization"?
And so on. I think people don't even know why it is happening yet. There is a lot of cognitive labor ahead.
The left refuses to acknowledge the problem while the right (and far right) does, so guess where that leads?
Then take an economics course. Realise that globalisation outsources manufacturing, agriculture, services, etc..., lowering costs, but also lowering wages. This is by design. The 'Information' industry in the west was supposed to make up for the loss of blue collar jobs. Except it hasn't.
And then also realise that immigration increases the size of the workforce, especially the uneducated workforce. Again, downward pressure on wages.
Personally I think progressive economics provides a better solution than the regressive protectionism of the right. Except the left pretends there's no problem, and here we are.
However, in the context here, you think that:
Erdogan swept into power because the working class in Turkey has been "weakened" by immigration and globalization?
Second, the parent of your comment was about right-wing parties rising in Hungary and Poland.
I am asking because I think most writers think of these as part of a larger global movement, but your comments suggest you think they are different.
In Turkey and the Middle East Islamism has been rising, partly due to the collapse of Arab nationalism and partly due to Saudi Arabia's worldwide propagation of Wahhabism.
We are seeing failure of trust in to EU because its terrible at PR. Its successes are taken as local governments successes ("our govt is awesome, it snatched the money from those bureaucrats for new architecture!") which failures are easily blamed on Brussels ("We wanted to rescure our failing Shipyards and coal mining, but Brussels tells us we can't because its unfair competition! In meantime French and Germans have no issues like that! This is unfair competition and favorism of west-dominated Union!").
Then you have usual of their weird decisions that are brought as example of overgrown bureaucracy without attempt to understand the reasoning behind it. "Hey, did you hear? Idiots in Brussels decided that snails are fish, what an idiots" the popular saying goes, meantime nobody cares that such decision saved EU from making up separate legislature for seafood farming and trade.
Then we have refugee crisis which is generally something considered result of poor decisions beind done in western EU side that it is trying shift the blame on across all of the union. The situation where in Poland is explictly named amongst the countries that show no solidarity while at same time we've accepted one million people from UA doesn't help neither.
With all of this going on, its easy for populist guys to gain widespread support. However situation in Poland where traditionalistic-populistic gov gained enough of majority to rule on its own is (IMHO) primarily the result of weak opposition, whose entire idea and programme was "we are saner than those other folk" but instead we've got liberal party apparently become traditionalist one with leaks after leaks of them doing disappointing deals with each other or private business. This effectively sank primary opposition party in polls.
They've also made some harsh steps to improve the grim future of our social security system via bumping retirement age as well as forcefully relocating bulk of private savings to the public fund.
http://www.reuters.com/article/poland-pensions-idUSL6N0H02UV...
Apparently there's trend in the polls going on for few weeks now giving them growing support, but its most likely the wave of popular disgust for current gov, which would be story from 2006 repeating itself. I'm unsure if they are capable of fixing things.
The problem with this is that these hacks will continue to be used against the EU even when trying to reform them: It's easy to argue against handing sovereignty to an organisation with such a baroque decision-making process.
A lot of effort has gone into transitioning more powers to the EU parliament, but ultimately, it will be impossible to get where the EU ought to be in terms of which organs have which powers without very difficult processes in most of the member states.
Deeply direct democracy is self-sustaining - people would agree to move over to a new system because it would give them more power than they have in the current parliamentary systems.
The problem as far as I see is the current political class (parliamentarians and people in the executive branch), which would lose power. And since this is who currently has the power, and it's always nearly impossible to make somebody give up power, that's the reason why this won't happen.
But Europe is in a state of crisis now, and maybe this crisis is great enough to motivate this class to move to a more open system.
If you think about it, the current indirect democracy (with parliaments and the electoral college etc) is a remnant of a time when a decision took days to travel through the whole land, and to be reasonably fast and decisive, you had to have them. Thanks to the internet, we could even go past such direct democracies like Switzerland and allow each citizen to vote at each bill, or if she didn't want to spend the time, leave that decision to a parliamentarian of her choosing, but with the option to take power again or give it to a different parliamentarian at any moment. Now that is true democracy. No back-hand deals, and no favoritisms anymore.
Switzerland was always an okay model of how to run a federation.
Ceding sovereignity always leads to less democracy and more central control, not the other way around.
The EU is starting to look a lot like a modern day Austria-Hungary, only bigger. We all know what happened to Austria-Hungary: WWI.
As it stands, the Treaty of Lisbon went about as far as it could in handing additional powers to the EU Parliament while triggering the minimal number of constitutional changes for member parliaments, and look at the circus that turned into. And that was first after the attempt at a constitution failed.
The centralisation you worry about already happened many years ago, and the sovereignty issue is now largely the blocker to devolving more that power to the EU parliament, and after the trouble getting the Treaty of Lisbon through there's little appetite to take another round anytime soon.
That Lisbon has given substantially sharpened teeth to Parliament has been demonstrated repeatedly, with both the Commission and Council of Ministers having been forced to backtrack or compromise in areas where they previously would have been able to do what they wanted.
Poland is post-communist country. During previous system it maintained many companies that weren't economically viable. Shipyards weren't build because it was economically viable to have shipyard there or there. They were build because Communists knew it was easy to guarantee mass employment by expanding heavy industry. This means that any polish city on our coastline with population required to staff shipyard got one. This shipyard would then employ between 20 to 50 thousand people on its own, as well as give employment for countless other people working in the region in shops supplying those shipyards or their workers. People from nearby smaller towns would then flock to larger towns to work here.
When system changed, so did the need for our fleets (in old system we've even maintained the Pacific Trade fleet and Pacific Shrimpfishing Fleets!) and in result the shipbuilding and maintenance services plummeted. It was same all across the board. Coal mining, steel mills, farming, weaving. Millions of people had to find their place in new reality. It wasn't surprise that people elected those promising heavy donations for what was left from first democratic's governments mass privatization, closures and sales. This meant polish taxpayers were keeping nonprofitable remnants of heavy industry in meantime being fed promises next governments about reforms coming in that will reduce the burden and sitting down by TV after work to watch in the news how our coal miners or shipbuilders strikes made current govt cave in, postpone cuts and offer another "mobilisation package" of millions of taxpayer money for keeping those industries alive.
This was business as usual until the year 2004 happened and Poland entered EU, which has changed the rules of the game and started hammering our govts for dishing so much taxpayers money at non-profitable private companies, that thus don't have to really care about being competitive with others.
How is this judged? Depends on region you are from. Some areas judge this in plus for EU because "apparently EU respects our money more than our own government".
But for other this is proof that EU wants to kill our heavy industry. Occasional news of EU letting same slip for some company in Germany or France is then blown out of proportion by the media to whole shipbulding in the west being taxpayer funded being allright while suspiciously its wrong when its polish govt helping polish companies.
I think Poland's decision to stick with the zlot is a good one on the long term. Once you switch to the Euro you've surrendered control of your currency to Bruxelles and there is no going back.
It's easy to justify one's actions, no matter how repugnant, against the spectre of some unknown enemy.
Politicians and public officials perjuring themselves (2 years from Nixon)
Intelligence agencies run amok (CIA toppling governments like they are made out of cards)
Flagrant civil rights violations by police (LOL no example needed here I should hope)
Please don't conflate better information with worse conditions. Things have never been better and they are getting better all the time (public shaming of politicians who say or do stupid shit, Snowden level leaks of intelligence agency bad behavior, federally recognized rights for gays in the military and marriage etc).
CIA and NSA are enjoying unprecedented levels of low oversight and restraint.
For all the "public shaming" that is supposedly happening, where are the actual consequences?
Really? I'd have chosen different words, or none at all.
Iran isn't a dictatorship.
I'm sure there are more, but these are off the top of my head.
To be clear, Iran is not totalitarian, but definitely shades of dictatorship.
It really feels like a repeat of communism. The rise of an ideology across the world. It's not an homogeneous block. Various muslim ethnic groups hate each others, as did the Maoists, Stalinists, Trotskyist, etc. It happens pretty much everywhere there is a muslim population. Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Lybia, Egypt, Yemen, Somalia / Eritrea, Iraq, Syria, Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Indonesia, etc. Western leaders like to pretend that islamists are a minority of extremist groups but the reality is that pretty much anytime there has been a free-ish election in any of these countries, the islamists toped the polls, or got an outright majority.
I think it will get worse before it gets better.
Iran certainly cannot be called a full democracy, the religious council has to approve candidacies for President - it isn't even clear if the current President Rouhani can pose as a candidate!
But there are some Muslim democracies working better, like Indonesia and Malaysia.
FIFY
Or that North Carolina where homosexual people are flogged and hung if they repeat their "crime"?
Or North Carolina where if you declare yourself an atheist or join another religion your own father and brothers will cut your throat?
Oh, wait, nope, none of that actually happens in North Carolina and you comparing Islamic countries ruled by Sharia with North Carolina to try and tell people that Christian majority countries are just as bad is just some absolutely nonsensical hyperbole.
Isn't the hallmark of a healthy democracy a strict separation of church and state, regardless of the religion concerned?
This is all a reaction to changing times, with globalization a key driver in loss of status. Some cultures can handle it, some can't.
Bangladesh has been ruled by a woman (a long running rivalry between Sheikh Hasina and Khaleda Zia) since 1991 pretty much continuously.
All three have secular, and at least nominally democratic governments. Not without their problems, far from it. There are many reasons for these, domestic, colonial, Islamic neihbours, etc... but I think your comment betrays an extremely superficial view of the world.
"Thinkers within the AKP — notably former Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu — harbored reservations about the compatibility of Western political and social institutions with their predominantly Muslim society. But the AKP leadership never acted upon this idea, choosing instead to undermine aspects of Ataturk’s legacy within the framework of the republic. That is no longer the case."
The fact that not a single muslim country can be called a democracy does raise some question about the religion itself and its current set of values.
The AKP is an Islamic party and we've been discussing it's threat to secularism and democracy in Turkey vigorously for many years. The supposed (self-)censorship of which you speak doesn't exist.
For the record, elections are coming up in Indonesia, the largest muslim country. And yes conservative Islam and Islamism are a threat to democracy in many democratic Muslim countries. Which is why it is opposed by moderate democratic muslims (like the 49% that voted no in Turkey).
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/17/world/asia/jakarta-electi...
"As of 2012, Indonesia is the only Muslim-majority nation acknowledged as fully democratic by both Freedom House and Economist democracy indexes."
Allegedly.
And no one wanted to bring sharia law in Turkey, I wonder if I was living in the same Turkey as you in 90s..
Just leave the people the chance to state/express what they want (democratically) without coups that we always suffer from. When the people choice doesn't go with the west the unleash their military pets and force a coup.
I can laugh at the hypocrisy of Western media and it's support to.. Democracy.
PS: Thanks for down vote, I can understand this unexpected results are not making many happy, that's OK. I was not happy when Trump became President but then I respect the choice of voters :-)
Besides, even if Erdogan had been Christian, the end result would be the same: he now has fewer controls on his power, fewer people he needs to make happy to stay in power, and more ways to entrench himself in the Turkis government.
Hahah, keep dreaming, he is here for 8 years :-)
Dictator and terrorist are the terms that are relative, everyone use for his own sake.
"Enabling Egypt's President Sisi, an Enemy of Human Rights"
"The U.S. Should Not Be Egypt's Accomplice "
"Trump Shifts Course on Egypt, Praising Its Authoritarian Leader"
"Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, the defense minister and commander in chief of the armed forces, seized power in July 2013 and outlawed protests."
"Egypt's Ricketty Dictatorship"
[0] https://www.google.com/search?q=new+york+times+el+sisi
Yet to find such country. We re not talking about bookish knowledge. World witnessed what's been happening with Blacks in US and Muslims in India.
You know about these events because something resembling an independent and strong media exists in both of those countries. The lack of which is also the reason you hardly ever hear about the persecution of non-Muslims in Pakistan and Bangladesh.
Erdogan has already cleansed the media off his opponents. That pillar of democracy is already down.
In this referendum, for example, the ultra-nationalist party MHP played a strong role, supporting Erdogan. Along with their notorious neo-fascist paramilitary units, the Grey Wolves, which attacked "no" demonstrations, especially any linked to Kurdish groups. But these militias aren't a new development. They're decades old, and have had various political roles over the years, usually linked to the "democratic" establishment. Historically the MHP often carried out dirty work for the Kemalists, especially operations that the military didn't want to do officially, like attacks on leftist intellectuals and Kurdish cultural figures. What's changed is that the MHP has switched alliances from working with them to working with the AKP, at least for now, which is part of an ongoing reorientation of political alliances. A weird alliance though, since AKP are more Islamist and MHP don't really care about Islam.
Edit: And clearly I have voted No in this referendum. Just such spaghetti bundles of false information isn't needed. Sorry.
I would like to know more. I've never understood the parliamentarian system. I'm use to a presidential system with checks and balances.
Advantages of the parliamentarian system over presidential include:
- short campaigns where the parties run, rather than personalities - short campaigns because the PM can call snap elections any time - parliament is usually not adversarial towards the government - elections are less frequent
Disadvantages: - parliament is usually not adversarial towards the govt - elections are less frequent
What I'd like to see is a way for the House of the U.S. Congress, and the POTUS, to be able to do something similar to calling snap elections: accelerate the election schedule by shortening the terms of currently-sitting congress-critters and the POTUS. (Presidential term limits would have to be adjusted to an amount of time rather than number of terms.) I think this would give us the best of both worlds. It would give Congress a huge check on the POTUS and vice-versa: whenever POTUS is very unpopular Congress could call elections, and whenever POTUS is very popular POTUS could call elections. And campaign seasons would be much shorter: presidential campaigns would not be two years long, but weeks or months. But a new primary system would be needed, that's for sure.
This whole citation needed garbage needs to stop. Go find the information from the obvious source, or don't, your choice. The burden of proof is a BS burden and is an excuse for people to not exercise their brains and SUPPOSED education.
Just like I wouldn't trust the average American to be able to meaningfully distinguish truth from misinformation (do I even trust myself to?), I wouldn't trust "any Turkish person" to do so.
You're making a strong, blanket claim, which you say is easily verifiable. Back it up.
I have no idea what to believe of it, if anything. Kemalists supporting AKP?! That one is hard to believe, unless they've accepted that they're out of power and want to curry some -- that's a possibility, I guess.
What is clear is that Turkey is sliding towards dictatorship with an islamist feel. Nothing good may come of it.
The Kemalists are all gone from the military, so expect nothing from that department.
We live in interesting times.
Turkey is in for a very rough time.
Anyone that's been paying attention to Turkey for the past decade knew of this. It's one of the reasons I hang on Camfrog, the Turkish are prevalent there (although typically the ones you encounter are just trying to harass women into displaying some skin. Mention politics and their attention changes drastically.)
Got it.
Keep in mind that this referenfum was organized under a state of emergency imposed after last year's failed coup. So its democratic nature is rather questionable. The No campaigners were misrepresented and harassed.
No, the Shah was pretty brutal. Besides SAVAK there were many other really bad episodes, one of which I read about some years ago but have never forgotten about as the epitome of decadency:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2,500_year_celebration_of_the_...
Turkey is a peculiar case. Turkey's post-Ataturk government has (usually) been more secular than the United States (to the point of--at times--making it illegal for women to cover their heads). It was quite a pleasant place for non-muslims to visit, e.g. alcohol was legal and widely available, and Israelis routinely went on holiday to the Turkish coast.
In the past, when the Turkish government has veered toward theocracy, the military has stepped in, restored democracy, and stepped back. The coup didn't work this time, and its failure made the theocracy stronger. I fear that secular Turkey is over.
Erdogan and AKP's political innovation (I think) was supporting a strong muslim-nationalist identity that consolidated support from both camps (thus denying them to the opposition) and created a very coherent story for why people should support him.
He also garnered a LOT of support from the international scene, especially western Europe and the US, when he got elected. It got hailed as a step forward for democracy, who willfully ignored and dismissed Erdogan's much more shady history. And, admittedly, Erdogan did start out as a right-of-center leader, which helped people suspend some hangups. He made a lot of changes that helped his base in the long run - easier access to stable government jobs, better public services, etc. Meanwhile, eventually, the secular camp's worries would be proven correct, of course, but in a slightly different way than they anticipated.
Re: MHP, it is mostly just grasping for relevance in an age where its voter base could just as easily go to AKP and CHP, which would reduce its overall support to less than 10% of the country, which would mean that they don't get seats in parliament (a law passed during the secular era to deny representation leftist / "communist" / kurdish / extremist groups, depending on who you ask).
---
edit re: whether "Islam" caused all this https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14131444
No sane US military leader would attack even if they created a new Sultanate and aligned with Russia or Iran.
[1] http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-det...
In contrast, Erdogan is not the type to leave power peacefully.
Indeed it is a pity that this vote was not to completely destroy that junta crap and install a new modern constitution.
Now, one guy can rule by decree and renew elections at will.
Once again we will have to open our borders to this good people running away from a war and once again we will have to pretend that the majority of them didn't actually choose this way of life by supporting some dictator/ideology whose main ideologic pillars are xenophoby against people that don't follow their religion their way (Kurds) and a return to islamism in some form of Sharia.
We can/should help those in need and in fact we do help those in need, but don't put the blame on us for those people grave conditions in the first place.
For instance we should have known that if we don't consider Turkey as a partner, that they will at some point say "x you" and look for support from others. We could've also considered how we can take care of the refugees instead of dropping them on weaker governments. And we could have also considered how to treat Greece like a part of our community instead of sucking them more and more dry, which leaves all other fringe EU countries wondering how they will be treated if they ever get weaker.
- Turkey brought their legal institutions to the modern times
- that Turkey showed more respect for democratic and humanistic principles
- that Turkey respected more the civil rights of their citizens
- that Turkey respected their ethnic minorities (like the Kurds)
- Turkey recognized a member of the EU as an actual country (Cyprus).
And then, after Turkey failed yet, and yet again to address all those problems and we told them patiently yet again, that they needed to address those problems and they still didn't, they decided they are not going to really try and reverted the little work they had done.
And you come and blame the EU for wanting Turkey to become a country that actually respects the right of its own citizens.
How could we be so heartless, right?
Yes. You still haven't managed to think about what's our fault and why yet, though.
Europe and America invaded iraq.
Europe killed Gaddafi and then abandoned Libya to the vacuum.
On Syria, i guess Europe and america and share blame with their middle eastern allies. But again Europe was willing and eager participant.
Its called blowback. You reap what you sow.
> As such, the prime minister, supported by the Office of the Prime Minister (PMO), controls the appointments of many key figures in Canada's system of governance, including the governor general, the Cabinet, justices of the Supreme Court, senators, heads of crown corporations, ambassadors to foreign countries, the provincial lieutenant governors, and approximately 3,100 other positions.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Minister_of_Canada
Chilling, isn't it? Perhaps this change in Turkey is an opportunity to engage in political change here in the Americas.
(There are hopefully other checks and balances that quote doesn't mention.)
The act defines how we vote, the constitution only requires that the vote method be reasonably democratic.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_3_of_the_Canadian_Ch...
You know, like Turkey used to have. Before yesterday.
> the commons may revoke its confidence in an incumbent prime minister and Cabinet or caucus revolts can quickly bring down a serving premier and even mere threats of such action can persuade and/or compel a prime minister to resign his post, as happened with Jean Chrétien.
> The Reform Act of 2014 codifies the process by which a caucus may trigger a party leadership review and, if necessary, choose an interim leader.
> Either the sovereign or his or her viceroy may oppose the prime minister's will in extreme, crisis situations.
Also what happens if the ruling party does not have a majority and they lose the coalition that gives them enough seats to rule?
Asking the sovereign to intervene is an extreme last-resort, having last happened around forty years ago in Australia.
Canada's democracy functions excellently when in a minority; in that situation the house has the balance of power, and not the PMO.
RIP Austria (OVP), long time ago. RIP France (soon, NF - Le Pen). RIP Germany (soon AfD). RIP Holland (soon Vilgers), RIp Russia, RIP Hungary. In similar lines - Maybe RIP USA too. (Trump).
I know this is the line being hyped by anglophone newspapers, so I don't blame you for believing it, but we're talking about a party which has peaked at around 12% in national polls. Every single other notable party despises the AfD and is completely unwilling to consider a coalition with them.
It would take a small miracle to dislodge the current CDU/CSU/SPD grand coalition at all (about 66% combined), and the only remotely plausible alternative would be a shift to the left with SPD/Greens/Left. Nobody is talking about the AfD.
http://www.election.de/
Hey, you wanna make a bet on that? I'd love to win easy money from gullible people. The only way Le Pen wins is if she gets an absolute majority in the first round.
She doesn't win the second round. She doesn't win the legislatives. The National Front is nothing.
I'd say more RIP USA than RIP <western european government> for now.
He would rank so left on the US spectrum of politics, Bernie Sanders would call him "a fucking commie".
Just sayin'.
Sad outcome. Especially with 99% or so voting turnout, and such a close result. 97-99% voting turnout on such a large scale is a classic telltale sign of fabrication balloting, and was standard since at least CCCP, just like in Crimea independence referendum. With such a close result it would mean he was losing 70/30 by vote on a standard 70% turnout, but padding his numbers by 30% with his ballots was sufficient for him to maintain grip and win. Each successive referendum will make him stronger, unleashing his full potential without pesky opposition "provocateurs".
Turnout was 86%. Vote manipulation is very likely, but it wasn't done that blatantly. More blatant was the suppression of the opposition during the campaign.
However, since no one can replay history, no one can be sure that this actually would have happened. Erdogan would still have been himself, with the same corrupt attitude and religiously fanatic mind.
"One cannot be secular and a Muslim."
"If the skies and the ground were to open against us. If floods and volcanoes were to burst, We will not turn from our mission. My reference is Islam."
"Our minarets are our bayonets, Our domes are our helmets, Our mosques are our barracks."
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14144819
I would also support the opinion that Erdogan used the EU integration process to selectively weaken the kemalist/military grip on Turkey's institutions. While you could point out that the EU were a 'useful idiot', IMHO there was never a realistic chance of Turkey joining the EU. The reasons are multifold, most important ones being the resistance of the EU population in major EU countries such as Germany, France and Poland. In that regard, I think, EU politics were not on an honest basis and just a game.
Those people are obviously not Turkish. The military, by its founding from Ataturk, gives ZERO damns about membership, in fact they were pretty much established to STOP various forms of state 'membership' including religious.
This shows Erdogan's (lack of) principles.
The EU accession project was abandoned long before Syria, when it became clear a lot of EU countries (Germany above all) were not going to allow it for fear of increased migration numbers. Since then, Erdogan dropped any pretense of liking the democratic process and the rule of law, which were supposed to be strengthened as precondition of joining the EU. He used the real issue of corruption in the secular army as an excuse to strengthen his own position.
The kurdish issue is a long-standing problem and Erdogan uses them for classic "pressure management ": whenever he's under threat, he whips out the kurdish enemy to solidify his support. He's done this pretty much continuously since taking power, making a bit of progress on peace efforts to keep up appearances then cracking down whenever he needs a popularity boost. Like black and red terrorist groups in '70s Italy, kurdish groups are likely infiltrated at all levels by authorities.
Erdogan's wobbling on Syria had little to do with alignment with Putin or the US, and more to do with him initially betting on ISIS then backtracking once it became clear US and Russia weren't going to accept it anymore. The Russian plane shot down and subsequent apology was the end of that particular game, nothing to do with long-term alignment. Turkey had already denied their US bases for a number of operations before then.
Erdogan is not a pawn or even a solid ally to this or that front, he just plays his own fascist game.
That seems unfounded.
It seems most of your post is your own take, which is fine, but you're posting it as received knowledge.
The first part of your comment denotes a misunderstanding of the situation.
Turkish forces shot down the Russian plane in response to Russia's bombing of the Turkmen (Turkish minority in Syria) rebels. Turkey/US stance in Syria is also divided because the US supports Kurdish groups, just not those aligned with the PKK.
EU membreship is achieved by democracy, checks and ballances, economic stability, not by shooting down Russian planes. EU officials go out of their way to avoid conflict with Russia. Many were for less tougher sanctions than those imposed by the Obama administration.
You are right about Turkey joining the EU being a pipe dream. Turkey's alliances should be with other countries with similar cultures (Turkmenistan, Kazahstan, etc.).
https://geopoliticalfutures.com/making-sense-of-turkey/
https://geopoliticalfutures.com/turkey-secularism-and-religi...
The unknown factor from a western perspective is how this new Turkey will align itself (or not) with western interests, not a sudden sympathy for fellow Turks.
All other countries (except some like Sudan) doesn't require a visa for Syrians, while all other countries require one.
The world still doesn't understand this war we have and think it's a civil war.
People can't imagine that the few news they hear is true, they think exaggerated news.. believe me, it is not exaggerated at all, the opposite is true.
Children died from chemical weapons, a father has held his two twins after they died, all of this are happening to Syrians, and no one cares.
For Syrians, Turkey has done a lot and we appreciate it a lot, and we pray that Turkey stays safe in all aspects.
I.e., if you want to thank anybody, thank the previous governments of western EU countries (not the current ones) that educated their public enough to force the governments into doing anything. Without fear of public opinion all countries would've just shut their borders.
And why they keep arguing with Turkey to keep the sea borders block so refugees don't cross to Greece via sea?
promised to get paid for it. Yet to see a dime.
Actually calling them allies from Turkey's pov is outright a foolish thing to do, a better word would be "frenemies".
The first few google results for "turkey takes refugees" are actually all quite helpful to answer your questions.
(This sounds more condescending than I mean it. It's not supposed to be a "please use google yourself" comment.)
The people of Turkey are welcoming Syrians.
It's not about money, it's about acting like humans from both Government and People.
So in that sense it is accurate to claim this is the death of Turkey, even though the land borders aren't going anywhere.
Just like Persia preceded what we know as Iran today Turkey will now change into something that you would not recognize as the country it was only two decades ago.
The people that have means and/or skills are fleeing the country in droves (or have been placed under arrest or are afraid to even voice their misgivings). It's a very sad affair.
Probably depends heavily on the kind of skills you have. Military minded and super rich industrials may actually like the new system better.
Newspapers in Western Europe do the same. Just yesterday I've read an article that first asked something like "Well, what will happen with the country now?" and then basically just went on to explain again that more power is left in the hands of the president, not what the (supposedly negative) effects ought to be.
I wouldn't vote in Erdogan's favor if I'd be Turkish, but he's still a smart politician in my eyes. With the uncertainty of having to deal with all the refugees, with decreasing support and protection from the EU, with growing power in the East (Russia, China) taking more control may be the only thing he can do to get his ship through the storms.
Avoiding that can be quite beneficial. The real question is what you give up to get that benefit, right?
It seems to me that what you give up is largely the ability to pass legislation that is only favored by a small majority of the population. Things that have overwhelming support still end up getting passed in checks-and-balances systems, generally.
I, personally, consider the inability to pass things with small majority support a good thing, especially given statistical fluctuations in such support....
Rural people voting to give their civil influence away. By putting all power in one hands, making future elections meaningless and reducing power of civil actions.
Why does this happen? Because in e.g. USA, rural areas are anti-big-government and anti-power-centralization. Which is exactly opposite.
Somehow a lot of folks in rural US believe that:
* Billionaire real estate developer from wealthy family, who grew up in Queens and lives in Manhattan (both are the opposite of rural America), understands their problems and "feels their pain".
* Manufacturing jobs are coming back.
* Coal mines are coming back.
* Having less health care is more freedom.
* There are death panels in ACA (Obamacare).
List goes on and on...
It is easy to manipulate the uneducated people. That is one of the main reasons that a lot of politicians have vested interest in keeping general population uneducated. Educated people will never elect them, their corrupt friends or their spoiled kids (who are gonna run for office soon). That is why they do not want to increase spending on education.
1.5 Million vote envelope don't have seals. Who knows where they came from?
Difference between yes-no around 1.3 million.
We just can't do anything about it.
(https://twitter.com/kenanipek53/status/853675735357247490)
I am sad that yes vote win, but continuously arguing for this kind of technicalities doesn't really change anything.
3 biggest cities in Turkey voted for No. These 3 cities are having the most educated people. As long as people get more educated and it easier for them to reach for knowledge, it is going to get better for Turkey.
But at the same time it is glossed over that Turkey is a NATO member, and the second largest standing army within NATO.