14 ms·

RIP Turkey, 1921 – 2017

280 points by sushobhan 9y ago

my123 9y ago
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)
- dmix 9y ago
  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.
  - my123 9y ago
    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. :-)
  - cm2187 9y ago
    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.
    - my123 9y ago
      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.
    - pikzen 9y ago
      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. [1]https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affaire_Fillon https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affaire_Fillon
      - cm2187 9y ago
        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.
        pikzen 9y ago
        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.
        9y ago
  - dleslie 9y ago
    Meanwhile, in Canada: > 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 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Minister_of_Canada
    - my123 9y ago
      The constitutional court in France is appointed by the president, the president of the parliament and the president of the senate. One third for each.
    - 1_2__3 9y ago
      You're certainly a busy bee, posting this repeatedly in this thread. Almost like you have an agenda.
      - maxerickson 9y ago
        Twice isn't that much. 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_defeated_by_votes_of_no_confidence#Canada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prime_ministers_defeat... ). Nevermind that it has been done a number of times in an orderly fashion.
    - graphitezepp 9y ago
      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?
      - dleslie 9y ago
  - pvg 9y ago
    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.
    - AnimalMuppet 9y ago
      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.)
      - pvg 9y ago
        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.
- ttn 9y ago
  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.
  - stellar678 9y ago
    Is there some structural factor that prevents the assembly from being taken by Erdogan's opposition?
    - ttn 9y ago
      In theory they can. In practice, impossible. Its the culture. We do not vote for representative, we vote for a party and its leader.
    - tormeh 9y ago
      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.
      - m00dy 9y ago
        Who told you that Kemalists and the Kurds hate each other ? Can you give me any source for that ?
        tormeh 9y ago
        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.
  - pknerd 9y ago
    If you read a bit, Ataturk also managed things single handedly so should not be an alien concept for Turks
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- enraged_camel 9y ago
  >>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.
- JeremyBanks 9y ago
  Yes, as long as there's an independent empowered judiciary. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016–17_Turkish_purges 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.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- pikzen 9y ago
  wew lad 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).
sz4kerto 9y ago
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.)
- rocketpastsix 9y ago
  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.
  - beagle3 9y ago
    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.
    - maxerickson 9y ago
      Is it then a paradox that the first step towards organizing would be to talk to people?
      - beagle3 9y ago
        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).
na85 9y ago
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.
- fdsfsda7fsda 9y ago
  First comment is a whataboutism, well that didnt take long.
- purple-again 9y ago
  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).
  - na85 9y ago
    At least Nixon was forced out of office. What consequence has befallen Clapper for perjuring himself in front of Congress? 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?
ythn 9y ago
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?
- hashkb 9y ago
  > I don't want to start any flamewars Really? I'd have chosen different words, or none at all.
- xeromal 9y ago
  I believe Azerbaijan not only is not a dictatorship, but is also a secular government. Iran isn't a dictatorship. I'm sure there are more, but these are off the top of my head.
  - zip1234 9y ago
    "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.
  - cm2187 9y ago
    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. I think it will get worse before it gets better.
mnshaabani 9y ago
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!
lossolo 9y ago
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.
- ed_balls 9y ago
  The coup was most likely staged to get this vote.
  - kesselvon 9y ago
    Yep, the vote happened under the national emergency they activated after the failed coup.
- mustaflex 9y ago
  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.
  - Freak_NL 9y ago
    > […] and the gulenist(who attempted the coup) […] Allegedly.
    - mustaflex 9y ago
      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.
xmonader 9y ago
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.
- kesselvon 9y ago
  The muslim world seems perpetually hungry for a strongman leader
  - cremno 9y ago
    I didn't know countries like the USA are majority muslim.
    - AnimalMuppet 9y ago
      Or Russia, or much of Latin America.
pknerd 9y ago
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 :-)
- trendia 9y ago
  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.
  - pknerd 9y ago
    All I know that Erdogan is way better than a _genius_ Americans elected for their country :-)
    - halfdan 9y ago
      That does not legitimise anything you said or anything Erdogan is doing.
      - pknerd 9y ago
        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.
    - toxican 9y ago
      I'll take a dangerous idiot over a dangerous genius any day, thank you. At least we're done with Trump in 4 years (or sooner)
_delirium 9y ago
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.
- sukruh 9y ago
  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.
  - low_battery 9y ago
    Checks and balances? 1982 constitution was a horrid piece of work and it took decades to patch it up to a miserable kinda working state. Indeed it is a pity that this vote was not to completely destroy that junta crap and install a new modern constitution.
    - sukruh 9y ago
      That's correct - the 1982 constitution was far from being truly democratic - but it did have some oversight mechanisms over the executive branch. Now, one guy can rule by decree and renew elections at will.
jbmorgado 9y ago
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.
- erikb 9y ago
  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.
  - jbmorgado 9y ago
    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.
    - erikb 9y ago
      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.
dleslie 9y ago
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. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Minister_of_Canada 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.
- halestock 9y ago
  Why is that chilling?
  - et-al 9y ago
    Because one person "controls the appointments of many key figures in Canada's system of governance". (There are hopefully other checks and balances that quote doesn't mention.)
    - dleslie 9y ago
      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.
      - jk563 9y ago
        Mind explaining how the Government is able to change how Canadians vote?
        dleslie 9y ago
        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. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_3_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms#Permissible_restrictions_upon_the_right_to_vote https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_3_of_the_Canadian_Ch...
diminish 9y ago
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).
- TillE 9y ago
  > RIP Germany (soon AfD) 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/ http://www.election.de/
- pikzen 9y ago
  >RIP France (soon, NF - Le Pen) 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.
  - diminish 9y ago
    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.
- erikb 9y ago
  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.
abpavel 9y ago
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".
- lyschoening 9y ago
  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.
  - imartin2k 9y ago
    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.
    - endisukaj 9y ago
      Erdogan and those closest to him are not religious fanatics. Religion is just a tool for them to gain and consolidate power.
Xeoncross 9y ago
> 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.
danielam 9y ago
Two articles by George Friedman on understanding what's happening in Turkey and elsewhere: https://geopoliticalfutures.com/making-sense-of-turkey/ https://geopoliticalfutures.com/making-sense-of-turkey/ https://geopoliticalfutures.com/turkey-secularism-and-religion/ https://geopoliticalfutures.com/turkey-secularism-and-religi...
giorgosts 9y ago
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.
- cm2187 9y ago
  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.
  - kakaorka 9y ago
    I'm not sure that would be true in Egypt anymore.
a_alakkad 9y ago
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.
- erikb 9y ago
  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.
  - a_alakkad 9y ago
    Have you thought why EU nations paid Turkey for allowing refugees in, while not allowing them to enter the EU directly? And why they keep arguing with Turkey to keep the sea borders block so refugees don't cross to Greece via sea?
    - erikb 9y ago
      Yes, I have. If you want to talk more about, please explain more what you want to talk about.
  - a_alakkad 9y ago
    P.S. I'm not talking about people whom I respect, I'm talking about governments.
  - utku_karatas2 9y ago
whack 9y ago
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.
- jacquesm 9y ago
  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.
  - erikb 9y ago
    "The people that have means and/or skills" Probably depends heavily on the kind of skills you have. Military minded and super rich industrials may actually like the new system better.
- MaxfordAndSons 9y ago
  Strongmen/autocrats don't tend to allow free elections once they're in power, so you'll probably have to keep on wondering.
- erikb 9y ago
  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.
ajmurmann 9y ago
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?
- thriftwy 9y ago
  This is actually a good question. 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.
  - abuabdullah 9y ago
    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.
  - hospes 9y ago
    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.
mrwilhelm 9y ago
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? Difference between yes-no around 1.3 million. We just can't do anything about it.
- low_battery 9y ago
  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): (https://twitter.com/kenanipek53/status/853675735357247490 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.
whizzkid 9y ago
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.
- mrwilhelm 9y ago
  It doesn't matter now.
digi_owl 9y ago
I see a whole lot of EU this, EU that. But at the same time it is glossed over that Turkey is a NATO member, and the second largest standing army within NATO.
sukruh 9y ago
The Wikipedia article also looks informative: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_constitutional_referendum,_2017 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_constitutional_referen...

280 points by sushobhan 9y ago

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)

dmix 9y ago
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.
- my123 9y ago
  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. :-)
- cm2187 9y ago
  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.
  - my123 9y ago
    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.
  - pikzen 9y ago
    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. [1]https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affaire_Fillon https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affaire_Fillon
    - cm2187 9y ago
      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.
      - pikzen 9y ago
        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.
        9y ago
- dleslie 9y ago
  Meanwhile, in Canada: > 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 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Minister_of_Canada
  - my123 9y ago
    The constitutional court in France is appointed by the president, the president of the parliament and the president of the senate. One third for each.
  - 1_2__3 9y ago
    You're certainly a busy bee, posting this repeatedly in this thread. Almost like you have an agenda.
    - maxerickson 9y ago
      Twice isn't that much. 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_defeated_by_votes_of_no_confidence#Canada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prime_ministers_defeat... ). Nevermind that it has been done a number of times in an orderly fashion.
  - graphitezepp 9y ago
    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?
    - dleslie 9y ago
- pvg 9y ago
  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.
  - AnimalMuppet 9y ago
    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.)
    - pvg 9y ago
      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.
ttn 9y ago
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.
- stellar678 9y ago
  Is there some structural factor that prevents the assembly from being taken by Erdogan's opposition?
  - ttn 9y ago
    In theory they can. In practice, impossible. Its the culture. We do not vote for representative, we vote for a party and its leader.
  - tormeh 9y ago
    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.
    - m00dy 9y ago
      Who told you that Kemalists and the Kurds hate each other ? Can you give me any source for that ?
      - tormeh 9y ago
        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.
- pknerd 9y ago
  If you read a bit, Ataturk also managed things single handedly so should not be an alien concept for Turks
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
enraged_camel 9y ago
>>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.
JeremyBanks 9y ago
Yes, as long as there's an independent empowered judiciary. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016–17_Turkish_purges 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.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
pikzen 9y ago
wew lad 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).

sz4kerto 9y ago

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.)

rocketpastsix 9y ago
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.
- beagle3 9y ago
  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.
  - maxerickson 9y ago
    Is it then a paradox that the first step towards organizing would be to talk to people?
    - beagle3 9y ago
      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).

na85 9y ago

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.

fdsfsda7fsda 9y ago
First comment is a whataboutism, well that didnt take long.
purple-again 9y ago
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).
- na85 9y ago
  At least Nixon was forced out of office. What consequence has befallen Clapper for perjuring himself in front of Congress? 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?

ythn 9y ago

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?

hashkb 9y ago
> I don't want to start any flamewars Really? I'd have chosen different words, or none at all.
xeromal 9y ago
I believe Azerbaijan not only is not a dictatorship, but is also a secular government. Iran isn't a dictatorship. I'm sure there are more, but these are off the top of my head.
- zip1234 9y ago
  "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.
- cm2187 9y ago
  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. I think it will get worse before it gets better.

mnshaabani 9y ago

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!

lossolo 9y ago

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.

ed_balls 9y ago
The coup was most likely staged to get this vote.
- kesselvon 9y ago
  Yep, the vote happened under the national emergency they activated after the failed coup.
mustaflex 9y ago
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.
- Freak_NL 9y ago
  > […] and the gulenist(who attempted the coup) […] Allegedly.
  - mustaflex 9y ago
    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.

xmonader 9y ago

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.

kesselvon 9y ago
The muslim world seems perpetually hungry for a strongman leader
- cremno 9y ago
  I didn't know countries like the USA are majority muslim.
  - AnimalMuppet 9y ago
    Or Russia, or much of Latin America.

pknerd 9y ago

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 :-)

trendia 9y ago
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.
- pknerd 9y ago
  All I know that Erdogan is way better than a _genius_ Americans elected for their country :-)
  - halfdan 9y ago
    That does not legitimise anything you said or anything Erdogan is doing.
    - pknerd 9y ago
      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.
  - toxican 9y ago
    I'll take a dangerous idiot over a dangerous genius any day, thank you. At least we're done with Trump in 4 years (or sooner)

_delirium 9y ago

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.

sukruh 9y ago
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.
- low_battery 9y ago
  Checks and balances? 1982 constitution was a horrid piece of work and it took decades to patch it up to a miserable kinda working state. Indeed it is a pity that this vote was not to completely destroy that junta crap and install a new modern constitution.
  - sukruh 9y ago
    That's correct - the 1982 constitution was far from being truly democratic - but it did have some oversight mechanisms over the executive branch. Now, one guy can rule by decree and renew elections at will.

jbmorgado 9y ago

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.

erikb 9y ago
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.
- jbmorgado 9y ago
  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.
  - erikb 9y ago
    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.

dleslie 9y ago

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. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Minister_of_Canada 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.

halestock 9y ago
Why is that chilling?
- et-al 9y ago
  Because one person "controls the appointments of many key figures in Canada's system of governance". (There are hopefully other checks and balances that quote doesn't mention.)
  - dleslie 9y ago
    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.
    - jk563 9y ago
      Mind explaining how the Government is able to change how Canadians vote?
      - dleslie 9y ago
        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. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_3_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms#Permissible_restrictions_upon_the_right_to_vote https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_3_of_the_Canadian_Ch...

diminish 9y ago

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).

TillE 9y ago
> RIP Germany (soon AfD) 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/ http://www.election.de/
pikzen 9y ago
>RIP France (soon, NF - Le Pen) 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.
- diminish 9y ago
  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.
erikb 9y ago
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.

abpavel 9y ago

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".

lyschoening 9y ago
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.
- imartin2k 9y ago
  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.
  - endisukaj 9y ago
    Erdogan and those closest to him are not religious fanatics. Religion is just a tool for them to gain and consolidate power.

Xeoncross 9y ago

> 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.

danielam 9y ago

Two articles by George Friedman on understanding what's happening in Turkey and elsewhere: https://geopoliticalfutures.com/making-sense-of-turkey/ https://geopoliticalfutures.com/making-sense-of-turkey/ https://geopoliticalfutures.com/turkey-secularism-and-religion/ https://geopoliticalfutures.com/turkey-secularism-and-religi...

giorgosts 9y ago

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.

cm2187 9y ago
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.
- kakaorka 9y ago
  I'm not sure that would be true in Egypt anymore.

a_alakkad 9y ago

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.

erikb 9y ago
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.
- a_alakkad 9y ago
  Have you thought why EU nations paid Turkey for allowing refugees in, while not allowing them to enter the EU directly? And why they keep arguing with Turkey to keep the sea borders block so refugees don't cross to Greece via sea?
  - erikb 9y ago
    Yes, I have. If you want to talk more about, please explain more what you want to talk about.
- a_alakkad 9y ago
  P.S. I'm not talking about people whom I respect, I'm talking about governments.
- utku_karatas2 9y ago

whack 9y ago

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.

jacquesm 9y ago
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.
- erikb 9y ago
  "The people that have means and/or skills" Probably depends heavily on the kind of skills you have. Military minded and super rich industrials may actually like the new system better.
MaxfordAndSons 9y ago
Strongmen/autocrats don't tend to allow free elections once they're in power, so you'll probably have to keep on wondering.
erikb 9y ago
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.

ajmurmann 9y ago

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?

thriftwy 9y ago
This is actually a good question. 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.
- abuabdullah 9y ago
  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.
- hospes 9y ago
  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.

mrwilhelm 9y ago

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? Difference between yes-no around 1.3 million. We just can't do anything about it.

low_battery 9y ago
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): (https://twitter.com/kenanipek53/status/853675735357247490 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.

whizzkid 9y ago

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.

mrwilhelm 9y ago
It doesn't matter now.

digi_owl 9y ago

I see a whole lot of EU this, EU that. But at the same time it is glossed over that Turkey is a NATO member, and the second largest standing army within NATO.

sukruh 9y ago

The Wikipedia article also looks informative: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_constitutional_referendum,_2017 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_constitutional_referen...