10 ms·

Although from an outside perspective a military coup seems completely undemocratic the Turkish military has historically had the role of maintaining the princip

by pluma 10y ago

Although from an outside perspective a military coup seems completely undemocratic the Turkish military has historically had the role of maintaining the principles Atatürk founded the Turkish Republic on. You can think of them as a built-in correction mechanism in case the government veers too far off course -- they remove the government, reset everything to start and then hand over control back to the people once the situation is stable again. I strongly suggest reading the Wikipedia article on Kemalism (the principles of Atatürk for the Turkish Republic): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kemalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kemalism Erdogan dreams of bringing Turkey back to its Ottoman glory and is willing to exploit religion (and abolish Laicism) to do so. I don't think he staged the failed coup himself but it is clear that he's benefited the most from it: He told the Turkish people to go out and stop the coup, risking their lives and knowing full well that the soldiers wouldn't massacre the civilians but creating an opportunity to make his supporters seem like a peaceful opposition to the "violent" military. He spread the narrative that the coup was staged not to defend Atatürk's principles but by a religious sect his ruling party fell out with. He used that narrative and the failed coup to get rid of thousands of educators, judges, officials and military officers (calling it a "purge" even). He's basically doing what he did before: eliminating all opposition to ensure his rise to permanent and unlimited power. Except because of the clever PR move of risking his citizens' lives he now has public support for his autocratic ambitions. Atatürk created a nation that should have been an inspiration to the entire Islamic world with a degree of secularism far outmatching that of many Christian nations. Instead Erdogan is heading full speed back into the dark ages of theocratic dictatorships. This is a political tragedy of disturbing proportions and a huge loss for Europe and the Middle East.

emilsedgh 10y ago
Its not just Erdogan. People of Turkey seem to be supporters of this path. Although its very sad.
- cdash 10y ago
  The people have always been supporters of this path. That is why the reset button had to keep on being pushed by the military.
  - pluma 10y ago
    This isn't entirely wrong. Turkey started out as the remnants of the Ottoman Empire, an Islamic caliphate. Atatürk created a secular republic inspired by modern Western nations and culture. He even went so far as to change the writing system. It's fairly safe to say that Atatürk's ideals have always been in strong conflict with the will of a certain part of the demographic (e.g. fundamentalists) as well as people from many of the neighboring countries. Consider the controversies in France and other European countries surrounding (proposed) bans on headscarfs and burkas -- then consider that headscarfs have been banned in Turkish universities for decades (though this ban was not always extended to students). It's entirely possible to democratically elect a government that reaches majority support while harming the entire nation and the well-being of future generations. This is why certain laws are treated as immutable in most republics -- no matter how much the people want to change it.
    - manish_karan 10y ago
      Amazing how you give exmple of ban of "scarf" to compare the "democratic-ness"
    - pluma 10y ago
      In reply to the dead comment: I'm not saying banning scarfs is an example of democracy. I'm saying it's an example of the will of the people being overruled by the founding principle of Laicism. Even though the people want to have it, the constitution prohibits it.
  - ajmurmann 10y ago
    I would be interested to hear from people who are down voting this why they are doing that? On the surface this seems like a reasonable assumption given the role of the Turkish military.
    - toyg 10y ago
      Maybe because "the people" is a dangerous generalisation. I'm pretty sure huge swaths of Turkish citizenry don't really want to live in some Iran-style "democratic theocracy".
- guard-of-terra 10y ago
  > People of Turkey seem to be supporters of this path. A doubt all of them are. Just as with Brexit, popular opinion might be divided.
  - emilsedgh 10y ago
    Of course not all. But he seems to have the democratic support. As most people prefer it.
    - guard-of-terra 10y ago
      Having democratic support doesn't entitle him with right to dismantle the very system that let him be elected, and in my uneducated opinion that's what he does. Democracy is playing by the rules, not changing these rules each few years as you see fit, even while quoting "popular support" (but not holding any referendums, definitely).
    - toyg 10y ago
      Define "democratic". He consistently imprisoned opposition members and journalists, banned parties, fixed elections... Support is there, but let's not pretend it's so overwhelming -- in the last two elections, he failed to reach the supermajorities he craved and was forced to reshuffle an unpopular government. Despite all sorts of shocks, there is a quantifiable amount of people resisting his rule. Hopefully this won't change after these horrifying purges.
- pluma 10y ago
  Erdogan always had strong support from Turkish expatriates. I had always heard this explained as fundamentalists leaving Turkey because its secular laws were more restrictive (e.g. headscarfs are banned in universities[0] because of the strong separation of church and state) and Erdogan catering towards those fundamentalists. I don't know what changed in Turkey but it now seems that his support has grown not only outside the country but also within and he seems to be hellbent on exploiting religion to gain political support. I don't know whether he actually holds fundamentalist views himself but he certainly knows how to use them to his advantage. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headscarf_controversy_in_Turkey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headscarf_controversy_in_Turke...
  - finid 10y ago
    > I don't know whether he actually holds fundamentalist views himself... He does, actually. Google what he said about women.
    - pluma 10y ago
      You don't need to believe in religion to be a chauvinist, though.
      - creshal 10y ago
        And don't need to believe in anything to publicly support positions you think will get you votes.
        gkya 10y ago
        Today's Turkey is the glory of "populism".
      - finid 10y ago
        I agree, but his fundamentalist religious views are well-documented. The only difference between him and the Saudis is he does not wear funny outfits
    - deleted 10y ago
- virtualritz 10y ago
  The people who went to the streets, against the coup, where Erdogan's supporters. The majority of the populace in Ankara & Istanbul stayed in their houses. I.e. the only people on the streets where those against the coup. We do not know how many of the majority, who didn't take to the streets where for or against its success.
  - afsina 10y ago
    No, people has families and children and for a million other reason they may choose not to go to streets. It is idiotic to think that they are supporting the coup.
    - icebraining 10y ago
      It's not idiotic to think that some support the coup, and the parent poster specifically says we simply don't know how many support it or not.
- shabaan 10y ago
  Why would they (70%) not support him? - He increased their gdp - He reflects their view - He is merciful to the refugees (settled 2.2 million refugees) Why does he have to be pleasing to you? Why do you support hillary.. she killed millions.. Why do you support obama... yest 320 and today 124 (in idp school in syria) dead becasue of him Why do you support any damn politican in the west? All their pockets and morals are stained. They compare no where close to Erdogan. But your media has him hating with all kind of funny things. Anyways, You should be ashamed about the ban of headscarfs .. while claiming the "freedom"-superiority. Instead you are giving it an example for the "democracy". Guess we should re-define democracy as "bigotcracy"
  - unethical_ban 10y ago
    Do you want the Americans to fight the terrorists in Syria, or no? War is not without collateral damage. Our country gets criticized for not doing enough when we try to stay out of it, or for "murder" when we take violent action and someone innocent gets hurt. Erdogan jails journalists who don't like him, and has committed a purge of police, judges and teachers who he disagrees with. If President Obama dissolved police departments, school districts and judgeships on a wide scale, there would be mass protests or a civil war. We expect freedom of speech and freedom of thought, unlike many in Turkey, it seems. edit: I'd like to leave this here to show what he has done since the "coup". https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/4tq4sd/all_turkish_academics_banned_from_traveling/d5jbyy6 https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/4tq4sd/all_turki...
  - reitanqild 10y ago
    Is he merciful to the Kurds that helps fight IS or is he bombing them? Is he trying to force Germany to punish a comedian? Is he trying to reintroduce death penalty? Has he purged more than 2000 judges? Is it reasonable to think he has verified that all of them were bad judges during the two-three last days?
    - afsina 10y ago
      Too much drama? - PKK is killing your soldiers what do you do? This has nothing to do with IS. - Ok, he has a temper and does not have a good sense of humor but please, did you find "that" poem funny? - Oh come on. You know it was not about being bad judges. Though yes, reintroduction of death penalty is a very bad idea. Also things are being done too hastily. All allegations are need to be verified.
- fredThrind 10y ago
  I've been reading this sort of thing a lot recently. Indeed, I think someone admiringly called Turkey's military "the world's best armed constitutional court". Yet, from what I was able to gather, even the Turkish opposition parties objected to the coup, and comments from ordinary Turks (and interestingly Greeks) were that Turkish coups were very bad for them. Many of us presume to have the right to decide the fates of other nations-it's a weird throwback to the imperialist mindset. I wonder if we'd be as supportive of the US military taking over, in the interests of National Security if say, Trump, won the election and withdrew from Europe and East Asia? Or if Scotland voted to secede from the UK with the consent of the Commons, and the British Army decided that its duty was to protect the Union, and overthrow an elected government? There is no excuse for human rights abuses, but if the majority of Turks believe they've been chafing under Kemalism for 90 years, and want to try something different, what right do we have to presume to dictate to them? In any case, I fear this is all going to be moot. The commentariat is starting to make noises about the Kremlin supporting all manner of extremist candidates and positions in the West, including Brexit, Marine Le Pen, and Trump himself. Putin may have found the soft underbelly of Western democracy: money. I hope this isn't the case as I'll be as much a victim as anyone; but if it is, it will be the first bitter taste of the foreign meddling and sense of imperious entitlement we've been demonstrating for centuries.
  - denzil_correa 10y ago
    > There is no excuse for human rights abuses, but if the majority of Turks believe they've been chafing under Kemalism for 90 years, and want to try something different, what right do we have to presume to dictate to them? Democracy is not simply the rule of majority. There are certain fundamental aspects of democracy that are sacrilege and can not be broken down even if 99/100 citizens want it.
    - pabloski 10y ago
      Are you serious? Democracy is first and foremost the government of the majority. Whoever defines himself as democratic must respect the will of the majority. Sic et simplicitur.
vintermann 10y ago
Karl Popper considered a government democratic if it could be replaced without violence, and while that's not exactly my definition, I think it's a good start - a bare minimum. A provision in the constitution for military coups doesn't excuse it. That just means the Turkish constitution is a bad one, that doesn't offer its citizens democracy. Handing over control to the people "once the situation is stable again" is a joke - then the people the military disapprove of will have been purged, their parties outlawed and the public sufficiently intimidated from supporting them for a while. Which is not to say Erdogan is any friend of democracy, obviously. I don't think his recent reliance on free media during the coup will provoke any change of heart in him. It's just that Turkey's democracy was always a bit of a sham.
- pluma 10y ago
  Keep in mind those military coups have generally been relatively peaceful. Erdogan called the coup leaders a "junta" but that evokes the wrong images. The military is sworn to uphold the ideals of the Republic. The police is sworn to serve the government. The military has always tried to keep civilians out of the conflicts. As a German and knowing my country's history I think a violent escape hatch is always necessary and justified. Both Germany and the US have something quite similar except they don't have a designated protector but instead put that duty on their citizens -- which means the citizens would have to fight against professional soldiers, which is exactly what a military coup would avoid. You cite Popper, I cite Clausewitz: violence should be avoided, but if all else fails it should be regarded as the continuation of politics with other means. The important distinction is that it must be temporary and it must be avoided if at all possible. The coups wouldn't be necessary if it weren't for autocrats like Erdogan who try to corrupt the ideals they were supposed to uphold. Turkish military coups are the equivalent of law enforcement using lethal force: it should never happen, but when it becomes absolutely necessary it will save more lives than it costs. I'd even go so far as to say that if post-WW1 Germany had been modelled like Turkey, the nazis could have never risen to power. Unless the government, like Erdogan did, corrupted the military by replacing its leadership with its conspirators.
  - vintermann 10y ago
matt4077 10y ago
It will probably go done in history as the EU's worst mistake – far worse than Greece or Brexit – not to have provided Turkey with a realistic path to membership. Around 1995-2005, Turkey was growing economically, a civil society was taking root and the people had an optimistic outlook friendly to the west. Erdogan was a mildly-religious fan of the EU and keen on economic progress in his first years. I'm not saying that Turkey was ready for membership back then, but it became pretty clear that it wasn't a lack of democracy or poverty that was the main hinderance of turkish membership: there were just too many EU countries (and you only need one) that Turkey just had an inacceptable ratio of churches to mosques. Around election-time EU leaders would conveniently drop most pretenses and admit to this more or less in the open. For Erdogan, who was achieving ever more success at home, every EU visit became a humiliation. Pretty soon, he turned his back on Europe.
- scholia 10y ago
  To have a chance of joining the EU, Turkey had to implement EU rules, and prepare for the free movement of people. It was nowhere near doing that. The following is quoted from https://fullfact.org/europe/turkey-likely-join-eu/ https://fullfact.org/europe/turkey-likely-join-eu/ Turkey first applied to join what was then the EEC in 1987. It was declared an eligible candidate in 1997. Negotiations were formally opened in 2005. Now, in 2016, negotiations have closed on just one out of 35 chapters—‘science and research’, which was completed in 2006, the year after it was opened. Of the remaining 34 chapters, 14 have been opened for negotiation. In 2006, the EU decided that until Turkey agrees to remove obstacles to free movement of goods (including transport restrictions) between it and Cyprus, no more chapters will be provisionally closed. Eight chapters (including areas fundamental to EU law, such as free movement of goods and right of establishment and freedom to provide services) will not even be opened.
- joesmo 10y ago
  The other way to look at it is that Europe dodged a huge bullet by not creating said path to the EU for Turkey. It's not like Erdogan would have turned away from being an authoritarian dictator simply because Turkey was in the EU and things like Brexit would now have been a minor worry compared to an unstable state run by a authoritarian dictator that exemplifies everything the EU abhors. It's more than just the ratio of churches to mosques that makes Turkey ineligible for EU membership and Turkey/Erdogan have been proving that for years now.
emodendroket 10y ago
I mean, you could argue that maybe the military would be better, but a military coup of an elected leader doesn't just "seem" undemocratic; it is undemocratic by any reasonable standard.
- pluma 10y ago
  True, but then it becomes a matter of contrasting the will of the "demos" with the ideals that need to be upheld to ensure the future well-being of the people. There are very few actual democracies in existence today. There is a reason most democratic countries don't put every decision to a public vote and why there are often certain laws no government is allowed to change. You can agree or disagree with the priorities Atatürk set in place but from his point of view even an elected leader can become a traitor and enemy of the state and it's the duty of the military to stop him (because they are the only power not directly under the government's control and are able to resist with force if necessary unlike e.g. supreme court judges).
  - tptacek 10y ago
    You can say that a coup is in the long term interest of the people or not, just as you could say that a permanent military junta might better serve the people than the AKP. What the comment you're replying to is correctly pointing out is that what you can't say about a coup is that it's democratic. It's the opposite of democratic.
    - ivanca 10y ago
      It may not be democratic, but it certainly not the opposite of democratic. Let's put it this way, let's say 60% of people vote to kill the other 40%. And then a third party enters and stops such madness. You know who is more democratic of them all? The third party, for allowing the existence of more than one party. A coup can be more democratic than any election. It's all about context.
      - tptacek 10y ago
eternalban 10y ago
> I don't think he staged the failed coup himself Indeed. It is is pretty irrational for a grandee to "fake a coup" if the said grandee is not in 100% control of military-spook set. (And if 100%, it makes no sense, since you already have full control.) > He spread the narrative that the coup was staged not to defend Atatürk's principles but by a religious sect his ruling party fell out with. http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/2016/07/19/incirlik-air-base-still-without-power/87316140/ http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/2016/07/19/incir... You know, you can try and spin this n times till eternity, but it is pretty clear that either US or NATO tried to remove the legal government of a NATO member. This is Bay of Pigs v2.0 + "who lost China" all rolled in one.
- tonyedgecombe 10y ago
  I think I'd want to see some evidence rather than speculation before I believed that.
  - explorigin 10y ago
    Evidence in such matters is rare, but this scenario was predicted/accepted by some that study foreign policy: https://www.corbettreport.com/interview-1193-sibel-edmonds-dissects-the-turkish-coup/ https://www.corbettreport.com/interview-1193-sibel-edmonds-d... http://www.williamengdahl.com/englishNEO18July2016.php http://www.williamengdahl.com/englishNEO18July2016.php
- danielweber 10y ago
  > http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/2016/07/19/incir.. http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/2016/07/19/incir.... > You know, you can try and spin this n times till eternity, but it is pretty clear that either US or NATO tried to remove the legal government of a NATO member. The fact that the US military base is without external power is hardly proof, much less "pretty clear" that the US or NATO was involved. If I were in charge and there were a coup by the military, turning on power to military bases, especially foreign ones, would be way down my list of concerns.
shabaan 10y ago
I would like to comment how biased this view is. Yes the president is religious and cares about islam, his religion. - Turkey gdp has increased unparalleled in the whole of europe under Erdogan. - Erdogan has resettled 2.2 million syrian refugees in new cities (much more than whole of europe combined) with monthly food and money .. although 2.3 million are yet to settle. - He was elected with 60% votes and current stats (before coupe) say he enjoys support of 70% of people. This is sufficient for him deserving to be the democratically elected president of Turkey, even if with some wrongs (from turkish people perspective) here and there. But for some people in west and unilaterally in your media: - He is evil - He is religious - He is undemocratic - He talks about death penalty (although quitely we would rather support coup dictat sisi in egypt who gave 6000 people death penalty for "protests") - He has degraded morals (even though we in west have shown our real colors with regards to the refugee sit
- pluma 10y ago
  I'm not sure why you think my view is bigoted. I'm not saying he is evil, I don't agree with death penalties anywhere in Turkey our not, I don't think he "degraded morals" (what does that even mean?) and I don't think he has harmed the Turkish economy. I'm saying he is objectively harming the ideals the Turkish Republic was founded on by Atatürk. I'm not saying this because I think those ideals would allow holding Turkey back for the West to exploit. I'm saying that because I genuinely think Atatürk was a great leader whose principles should be an example for all nations, not just Turkey. I genuinely wish Germany was founded on Atatürk's principles instead of the mess we have (though I'm well aware of how much worse we could have it). I am genuinely upset by those ideals being betrayed by Erdogan and the Turkish people having chosen a path that stands against everything Turkey was founded on. I am German, a lot of my classmates in school were Turkish immigrants. I even took a Turkish language course in elementary school (although I can barely remember anything beyond "bir iki üç"). I would have loved to see Turkey succeed as a modern state and become an example other nations in the Islamic world can look up to. At this point I'm not even sure Turkey would be salvageable if Erdogan was gone. When I said this is a political tragedy, I mean it.
  - denzil_correa 10y ago
mustaflex 10y ago
The coup has been orchestrated by the gulenist,a religous sect infiltrated inside the army. No one in Turkey need to hear Erdogan say it to believe it. For 12 years the secular/kemalists warn the government to stop supporting them. If western powers were so concerned about democracy in Turkey, they should've talked much sooner, when Ergodan and gulen were throwing thousands of kemalist from all of Turkey's instituations since 2007 with ridiculous accusations. They started to raise concerns only when Erdogan turned his attention from the kemalist to his former allied gulen. The sentiment that America and gulen are behind the coup didn't happen in 1 day, its started WAY BEFORE(for 12 years). And the first to believe it are the kemalists themselves because they were the first victims of Gulen and his followers. And please stop with this Islamic propaganda, there is no way that Sharia is coming in Turkey. This is just wishful thinking. Yes Erdogan is a authocratic fuck, and he will do anything in his power to muster more, but everyone in Turkey right know is focused on the gulenist right now. Anti-American sentiment is at an all time high and it is this time from every factions of the population.
Eupolemos 10y ago
"Erdogan dreams of bringing Turkey back to its Ottoman glory and is willing to exploit religion (and abolish Laicism) to do so." I don't know if this is true, it may as well be that he caters to the majority in current Turkey. Things are a mess in Turkey, but I'm not sure that is Erdogans fault. He's got ISIS, Russia and an aggressive West to deal with, along with a divided nation. I'm all for an open democracy, but I don't think that would work in Turkey in this horrible situation. A measure of safety does come before democracy, a reality we are quick to forget in the more peaceful parts of the world. IIRC, his political opponents had their chance and blew it in a spectacular manner, so that even more people voted for Erdogan. What good is a military coup, if the current government is the least of the possible evils? I don't know much about Turkey, but I feel we may be guilty of judging Erdogan out of true context.

by pluma 10y ago

emilsedgh 10y ago

Its not just Erdogan. People of Turkey seem to be supporters of this path. Although its very sad.

cdash 10y ago
The people have always been supporters of this path. That is why the reset button had to keep on being pushed by the military.
- pluma 10y ago
  This isn't entirely wrong. Turkey started out as the remnants of the Ottoman Empire, an Islamic caliphate. Atatürk created a secular republic inspired by modern Western nations and culture. He even went so far as to change the writing system. It's fairly safe to say that Atatürk's ideals have always been in strong conflict with the will of a certain part of the demographic (e.g. fundamentalists) as well as people from many of the neighboring countries. Consider the controversies in France and other European countries surrounding (proposed) bans on headscarfs and burkas -- then consider that headscarfs have been banned in Turkish universities for decades (though this ban was not always extended to students). It's entirely possible to democratically elect a government that reaches majority support while harming the entire nation and the well-being of future generations. This is why certain laws are treated as immutable in most republics -- no matter how much the people want to change it.
  - manish_karan 10y ago
    Amazing how you give exmple of ban of "scarf" to compare the "democratic-ness"
  - pluma 10y ago
    In reply to the dead comment: I'm not saying banning scarfs is an example of democracy. I'm saying it's an example of the will of the people being overruled by the founding principle of Laicism. Even though the people want to have it, the constitution prohibits it.
- ajmurmann 10y ago
  I would be interested to hear from people who are down voting this why they are doing that? On the surface this seems like a reasonable assumption given the role of the Turkish military.
  - toyg 10y ago
    Maybe because "the people" is a dangerous generalisation. I'm pretty sure huge swaths of Turkish citizenry don't really want to live in some Iran-style "democratic theocracy".
guard-of-terra 10y ago
> People of Turkey seem to be supporters of this path. A doubt all of them are. Just as with Brexit, popular opinion might be divided.
- emilsedgh 10y ago
  Of course not all. But he seems to have the democratic support. As most people prefer it.
  - guard-of-terra 10y ago
    Having democratic support doesn't entitle him with right to dismantle the very system that let him be elected, and in my uneducated opinion that's what he does. Democracy is playing by the rules, not changing these rules each few years as you see fit, even while quoting "popular support" (but not holding any referendums, definitely).
  - toyg 10y ago
    Define "democratic". He consistently imprisoned opposition members and journalists, banned parties, fixed elections... Support is there, but let's not pretend it's so overwhelming -- in the last two elections, he failed to reach the supermajorities he craved and was forced to reshuffle an unpopular government. Despite all sorts of shocks, there is a quantifiable amount of people resisting his rule. Hopefully this won't change after these horrifying purges.
pluma 10y ago
Erdogan always had strong support from Turkish expatriates. I had always heard this explained as fundamentalists leaving Turkey because its secular laws were more restrictive (e.g. headscarfs are banned in universities[0] because of the strong separation of church and state) and Erdogan catering towards those fundamentalists. I don't know what changed in Turkey but it now seems that his support has grown not only outside the country but also within and he seems to be hellbent on exploiting religion to gain political support. I don't know whether he actually holds fundamentalist views himself but he certainly knows how to use them to his advantage. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headscarf_controversy_in_Turkey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headscarf_controversy_in_Turke...
- finid 10y ago
  > I don't know whether he actually holds fundamentalist views himself... He does, actually. Google what he said about women.
  - pluma 10y ago
    You don't need to believe in religion to be a chauvinist, though.
    - creshal 10y ago
      And don't need to believe in anything to publicly support positions you think will get you votes.
      - gkya 10y ago
        Today's Turkey is the glory of "populism".
    - finid 10y ago
      I agree, but his fundamentalist religious views are well-documented. The only difference between him and the Saudis is he does not wear funny outfits
  - deleted 10y ago
virtualritz 10y ago
The people who went to the streets, against the coup, where Erdogan's supporters. The majority of the populace in Ankara & Istanbul stayed in their houses. I.e. the only people on the streets where those against the coup. We do not know how many of the majority, who didn't take to the streets where for or against its success.
- afsina 10y ago
  No, people has families and children and for a million other reason they may choose not to go to streets. It is idiotic to think that they are supporting the coup.
  - icebraining 10y ago
    It's not idiotic to think that some support the coup, and the parent poster specifically says we simply don't know how many support it or not.
shabaan 10y ago
Why would they (70%) not support him? - He increased their gdp - He reflects their view - He is merciful to the refugees (settled 2.2 million refugees) Why does he have to be pleasing to you? Why do you support hillary.. she killed millions.. Why do you support obama... yest 320 and today 124 (in idp school in syria) dead becasue of him Why do you support any damn politican in the west? All their pockets and morals are stained. They compare no where close to Erdogan. But your media has him hating with all kind of funny things. Anyways, You should be ashamed about the ban of headscarfs .. while claiming the "freedom"-superiority. Instead you are giving it an example for the "democracy". Guess we should re-define democracy as "bigotcracy"
- unethical_ban 10y ago
  Do you want the Americans to fight the terrorists in Syria, or no? War is not without collateral damage. Our country gets criticized for not doing enough when we try to stay out of it, or for "murder" when we take violent action and someone innocent gets hurt. Erdogan jails journalists who don't like him, and has committed a purge of police, judges and teachers who he disagrees with. If President Obama dissolved police departments, school districts and judgeships on a wide scale, there would be mass protests or a civil war. We expect freedom of speech and freedom of thought, unlike many in Turkey, it seems. edit: I'd like to leave this here to show what he has done since the "coup". https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/4tq4sd/all_turkish_academics_banned_from_traveling/d5jbyy6 https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/4tq4sd/all_turki...
- reitanqild 10y ago
  Is he merciful to the Kurds that helps fight IS or is he bombing them? Is he trying to force Germany to punish a comedian? Is he trying to reintroduce death penalty? Has he purged more than 2000 judges? Is it reasonable to think he has verified that all of them were bad judges during the two-three last days?
  - afsina 10y ago
    Too much drama? - PKK is killing your soldiers what do you do? This has nothing to do with IS. - Ok, he has a temper and does not have a good sense of humor but please, did you find "that" poem funny? - Oh come on. You know it was not about being bad judges. Though yes, reintroduction of death penalty is a very bad idea. Also things are being done too hastily. All allegations are need to be verified.
fredThrind 10y ago
I've been reading this sort of thing a lot recently. Indeed, I think someone admiringly called Turkey's military "the world's best armed constitutional court". Yet, from what I was able to gather, even the Turkish opposition parties objected to the coup, and comments from ordinary Turks (and interestingly Greeks) were that Turkish coups were very bad for them. Many of us presume to have the right to decide the fates of other nations-it's a weird throwback to the imperialist mindset. I wonder if we'd be as supportive of the US military taking over, in the interests of National Security if say, Trump, won the election and withdrew from Europe and East Asia? Or if Scotland voted to secede from the UK with the consent of the Commons, and the British Army decided that its duty was to protect the Union, and overthrow an elected government? There is no excuse for human rights abuses, but if the majority of Turks believe they've been chafing under Kemalism for 90 years, and want to try something different, what right do we have to presume to dictate to them? In any case, I fear this is all going to be moot. The commentariat is starting to make noises about the Kremlin supporting all manner of extremist candidates and positions in the West, including Brexit, Marine Le Pen, and Trump himself. Putin may have found the soft underbelly of Western democracy: money. I hope this isn't the case as I'll be as much a victim as anyone; but if it is, it will be the first bitter taste of the foreign meddling and sense of imperious entitlement we've been demonstrating for centuries.
- denzil_correa 10y ago
  > There is no excuse for human rights abuses, but if the majority of Turks believe they've been chafing under Kemalism for 90 years, and want to try something different, what right do we have to presume to dictate to them? Democracy is not simply the rule of majority. There are certain fundamental aspects of democracy that are sacrilege and can not be broken down even if 99/100 citizens want it.
  - pabloski 10y ago
    Are you serious? Democracy is first and foremost the government of the majority. Whoever defines himself as democratic must respect the will of the majority. Sic et simplicitur.

vintermann 10y ago

Karl Popper considered a government democratic if it could be replaced without violence, and while that's not exactly my definition, I think it's a good start - a bare minimum. A provision in the constitution for military coups doesn't excuse it. That just means the Turkish constitution is a bad one, that doesn't offer its citizens democracy. Handing over control to the people "once the situation is stable again" is a joke - then the people the military disapprove of will have been purged, their parties outlawed and the public sufficiently intimidated from supporting them for a while. Which is not to say Erdogan is any friend of democracy, obviously. I don't think his recent reliance on free media during the coup will provoke any change of heart in him. It's just that Turkey's democracy was always a bit of a sham.

pluma 10y ago
Keep in mind those military coups have generally been relatively peaceful. Erdogan called the coup leaders a "junta" but that evokes the wrong images. The military is sworn to uphold the ideals of the Republic. The police is sworn to serve the government. The military has always tried to keep civilians out of the conflicts. As a German and knowing my country's history I think a violent escape hatch is always necessary and justified. Both Germany and the US have something quite similar except they don't have a designated protector but instead put that duty on their citizens -- which means the citizens would have to fight against professional soldiers, which is exactly what a military coup would avoid. You cite Popper, I cite Clausewitz: violence should be avoided, but if all else fails it should be regarded as the continuation of politics with other means. The important distinction is that it must be temporary and it must be avoided if at all possible. The coups wouldn't be necessary if it weren't for autocrats like Erdogan who try to corrupt the ideals they were supposed to uphold. Turkish military coups are the equivalent of law enforcement using lethal force: it should never happen, but when it becomes absolutely necessary it will save more lives than it costs. I'd even go so far as to say that if post-WW1 Germany had been modelled like Turkey, the nazis could have never risen to power. Unless the government, like Erdogan did, corrupted the military by replacing its leadership with its conspirators.
- vintermann 10y ago

matt4077 10y ago

It will probably go done in history as the EU's worst mistake – far worse than Greece or Brexit – not to have provided Turkey with a realistic path to membership. Around 1995-2005, Turkey was growing economically, a civil society was taking root and the people had an optimistic outlook friendly to the west. Erdogan was a mildly-religious fan of the EU and keen on economic progress in his first years. I'm not saying that Turkey was ready for membership back then, but it became pretty clear that it wasn't a lack of democracy or poverty that was the main hinderance of turkish membership: there were just too many EU countries (and you only need one) that Turkey just had an inacceptable ratio of churches to mosques. Around election-time EU leaders would conveniently drop most pretenses and admit to this more or less in the open. For Erdogan, who was achieving ever more success at home, every EU visit became a humiliation. Pretty soon, he turned his back on Europe.

scholia 10y ago
To have a chance of joining the EU, Turkey had to implement EU rules, and prepare for the free movement of people. It was nowhere near doing that. The following is quoted from https://fullfact.org/europe/turkey-likely-join-eu/ https://fullfact.org/europe/turkey-likely-join-eu/ Turkey first applied to join what was then the EEC in 1987. It was declared an eligible candidate in 1997. Negotiations were formally opened in 2005. Now, in 2016, negotiations have closed on just one out of 35 chapters—‘science and research’, which was completed in 2006, the year after it was opened. Of the remaining 34 chapters, 14 have been opened for negotiation. In 2006, the EU decided that until Turkey agrees to remove obstacles to free movement of goods (including transport restrictions) between it and Cyprus, no more chapters will be provisionally closed. Eight chapters (including areas fundamental to EU law, such as free movement of goods and right of establishment and freedom to provide services) will not even be opened.
joesmo 10y ago
The other way to look at it is that Europe dodged a huge bullet by not creating said path to the EU for Turkey. It's not like Erdogan would have turned away from being an authoritarian dictator simply because Turkey was in the EU and things like Brexit would now have been a minor worry compared to an unstable state run by a authoritarian dictator that exemplifies everything the EU abhors. It's more than just the ratio of churches to mosques that makes Turkey ineligible for EU membership and Turkey/Erdogan have been proving that for years now.

emodendroket 10y ago

I mean, you could argue that maybe the military would be better, but a military coup of an elected leader doesn't just "seem" undemocratic; it is undemocratic by any reasonable standard.

pluma 10y ago
True, but then it becomes a matter of contrasting the will of the "demos" with the ideals that need to be upheld to ensure the future well-being of the people. There are very few actual democracies in existence today. There is a reason most democratic countries don't put every decision to a public vote and why there are often certain laws no government is allowed to change. You can agree or disagree with the priorities Atatürk set in place but from his point of view even an elected leader can become a traitor and enemy of the state and it's the duty of the military to stop him (because they are the only power not directly under the government's control and are able to resist with force if necessary unlike e.g. supreme court judges).
- tptacek 10y ago
  You can say that a coup is in the long term interest of the people or not, just as you could say that a permanent military junta might better serve the people than the AKP. What the comment you're replying to is correctly pointing out is that what you can't say about a coup is that it's democratic. It's the opposite of democratic.
  - ivanca 10y ago
    It may not be democratic, but it certainly not the opposite of democratic. Let's put it this way, let's say 60% of people vote to kill the other 40%. And then a third party enters and stops such madness. You know who is more democratic of them all? The third party, for allowing the existence of more than one party. A coup can be more democratic than any election. It's all about context.
    - tptacek 10y ago

eternalban 10y ago

> I don't think he staged the failed coup himself Indeed. It is is pretty irrational for a grandee to "fake a coup" if the said grandee is not in 100% control of military-spook set. (And if 100%, it makes no sense, since you already have full control.) > He spread the narrative that the coup was staged not to defend Atatürk's principles but by a religious sect his ruling party fell out with. http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/2016/07/19/incirlik-air-base-still-without-power/87316140/ http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/2016/07/19/incir... You know, you can try and spin this n times till eternity, but it is pretty clear that either US or NATO tried to remove the legal government of a NATO member. This is Bay of Pigs v2.0 + "who lost China" all rolled in one.

tonyedgecombe 10y ago
I think I'd want to see some evidence rather than speculation before I believed that.
- explorigin 10y ago
  Evidence in such matters is rare, but this scenario was predicted/accepted by some that study foreign policy: https://www.corbettreport.com/interview-1193-sibel-edmonds-dissects-the-turkish-coup/ https://www.corbettreport.com/interview-1193-sibel-edmonds-d... http://www.williamengdahl.com/englishNEO18July2016.php http://www.williamengdahl.com/englishNEO18July2016.php
danielweber 10y ago
> http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/2016/07/19/incir.. http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/2016/07/19/incir.... > You know, you can try and spin this n times till eternity, but it is pretty clear that either US or NATO tried to remove the legal government of a NATO member. The fact that the US military base is without external power is hardly proof, much less "pretty clear" that the US or NATO was involved. If I were in charge and there were a coup by the military, turning on power to military bases, especially foreign ones, would be way down my list of concerns.

shabaan 10y ago

I would like to comment how biased this view is. Yes the president is religious and cares about islam, his religion. - Turkey gdp has increased unparalleled in the whole of europe under Erdogan. - Erdogan has resettled 2.2 million syrian refugees in new cities (much more than whole of europe combined) with monthly food and money .. although 2.3 million are yet to settle. - He was elected with 60% votes and current stats (before coupe) say he enjoys support of 70% of people. This is sufficient for him deserving to be the democratically elected president of Turkey, even if with some wrongs (from turkish people perspective) here and there. But for some people in west and unilaterally in your media: - He is evil - He is religious - He is undemocratic - He talks about death penalty (although quitely we would rather support coup dictat sisi in egypt who gave 6000 people death penalty for "protests") - He has degraded morals (even though we in west have shown our real colors with regards to the refugee sit

pluma 10y ago
I'm not sure why you think my view is bigoted. I'm not saying he is evil, I don't agree with death penalties anywhere in Turkey our not, I don't think he "degraded morals" (what does that even mean?) and I don't think he has harmed the Turkish economy. I'm saying he is objectively harming the ideals the Turkish Republic was founded on by Atatürk. I'm not saying this because I think those ideals would allow holding Turkey back for the West to exploit. I'm saying that because I genuinely think Atatürk was a great leader whose principles should be an example for all nations, not just Turkey. I genuinely wish Germany was founded on Atatürk's principles instead of the mess we have (though I'm well aware of how much worse we could have it). I am genuinely upset by those ideals being betrayed by Erdogan and the Turkish people having chosen a path that stands against everything Turkey was founded on. I am German, a lot of my classmates in school were Turkish immigrants. I even took a Turkish language course in elementary school (although I can barely remember anything beyond "bir iki üç"). I would have loved to see Turkey succeed as a modern state and become an example other nations in the Islamic world can look up to. At this point I'm not even sure Turkey would be salvageable if Erdogan was gone. When I said this is a political tragedy, I mean it.
- denzil_correa 10y ago

mustaflex 10y ago

The coup has been orchestrated by the gulenist,a religous sect infiltrated inside the army. No one in Turkey need to hear Erdogan say it to believe it. For 12 years the secular/kemalists warn the government to stop supporting them. If western powers were so concerned about democracy in Turkey, they should've talked much sooner, when Ergodan and gulen were throwing thousands of kemalist from all of Turkey's instituations since 2007 with ridiculous accusations. They started to raise concerns only when Erdogan turned his attention from the kemalist to his former allied gulen. The sentiment that America and gulen are behind the coup didn't happen in 1 day, its started WAY BEFORE(for 12 years). And the first to believe it are the kemalists themselves because they were the first victims of Gulen and his followers. And please stop with this Islamic propaganda, there is no way that Sharia is coming in Turkey. This is just wishful thinking. Yes Erdogan is a authocratic fuck, and he will do anything in his power to muster more, but everyone in Turkey right know is focused on the gulenist right now. Anti-American sentiment is at an all time high and it is this time from every factions of the population.

Eupolemos 10y ago

"Erdogan dreams of bringing Turkey back to its Ottoman glory and is willing to exploit religion (and abolish Laicism) to do so." I don't know if this is true, it may as well be that he caters to the majority in current Turkey. Things are a mess in Turkey, but I'm not sure that is Erdogans fault. He's got ISIS, Russia and an aggressive West to deal with, along with a divided nation. I'm all for an open democracy, but I don't think that would work in Turkey in this horrible situation. A measure of safety does come before democracy, a reality we are quick to forget in the more peaceful parts of the world. IIRC, his political opponents had their chance and blew it in a spectacular manner, so that even more people voted for Erdogan. What good is a military coup, if the current government is the least of the possible evils? I don't know much about Turkey, but I feel we may be guilty of judging Erdogan out of true context.