5 ms·

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

by my123 10y 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 10y 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 10y 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 10y 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 10y 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 10y 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 10y 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 10y 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.
        10y ago
- dleslie 10y 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 10y 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 10y ago
    You're certainly a busy bee, posting this repeatedly in this thread. Almost like you have an agenda.
    - maxerickson 10y 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 10y 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 10y ago
- pvg 10y 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 10y 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 10y 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 10y 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 10y ago
  Is there some structural factor that prevents the assembly from being taken by Erdogan's opposition?
  - ttn 10y 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 10y 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 10y ago
      Who told you that Kemalists and the Kurds hate each other ? Can you give me any source for that ?
      - tormeh 10y 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 10y ago
  If you read a bit, Ataturk also managed things single handedly so should not be an alien concept for Turks
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
enraged_camel 10y 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 10y 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 10y ago
[deleted]
pikzen 10y 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).

by my123 10y ago

dmix 10y 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 10y 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 10y 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 10y 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 10y 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 10y 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 10y 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.
      - 10y ago
dleslie 10y 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 10y 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 10y ago
  You're certainly a busy bee, posting this repeatedly in this thread. Almost like you have an agenda.
  - maxerickson 10y 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 10y 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 10y ago
pvg 10y 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 10y 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 10y 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 10y 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 10y ago
Is there some structural factor that prevents the assembly from being taken by Erdogan's opposition?
- ttn 10y 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 10y 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 10y ago
    Who told you that Kemalists and the Kurds hate each other ? Can you give me any source for that ?
    - tormeh 10y 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 10y ago
If you read a bit, Ataturk also managed things single handedly so should not be an alien concept for Turks

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

enraged_camel 10y 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 10y 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 10y ago

[deleted]

pikzen 10y 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).