6 ms·

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

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 10y 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 10y 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 10y 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.
diminish 10y ago
Never have seen so many lies, and fake news bundled in one comment. Come on don't waste people's time. Edit: And clearly I have voted No in this referendum. Just such spaghetti bundles of false information isn't needed. Sorry.
- virmundi 10y ago
  As an American I have no idea about the veracity of the GP claims or your claims that they are false. Can others step in and make HN great again by having a cool, reasoned debate about the history of thr Turks within the confines of their democratic endeavors? I would like to know more. I've never understood the parliamentarian system. I'm use to a presidential system with checks and balances.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - _delirium 10y ago
    The clearest article I've found on current factions (not as much on the history of the Turkish state), from an admittedly left-wing perspective, is this one: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/04/erdogan-constitutional-amendments-coup-akp/ https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/04/erdogan-constitutional-am...
    - makmanalp 10y ago
      Might I also suggest: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/13/magazine/inside-turkeys-purge.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/13/magazine/inside-turkeys-p...
  - cryptonector 10y ago
    OT, but parliamentarian systems with first-past-the-post election of MPs seem to work very well. That's basically the entire anglo-saxon world minus the U.S. Advantages of the parliamentarian system over presidential include: - short campaigns where the parties run, rather than personalities - short campaigns because the PM can call snap elections any time - parliament is usually not adversarial towards the government - elections are less frequent Disadvantages: - parliament is usually not adversarial towards the govt - elections are less frequent What I'd like to see is a way for the House of the U.S. Congress, and the POTUS, to be able to do something similar to calling snap elections: accelerate the election schedule by shortening the terms of currently-sitting congress-critters and the POTUS. (Presidential term limits would have to be adjusted to an amount of time rather than number of terms.) I think this would give us the best of both worlds. It would give Congress a huge check on the POTUS and vice-versa: whenever POTUS is very unpopular Congress could call elections, and whenever POTUS is very popular POTUS could call elections. And campaign seasons would be much shorter: presidential campaigns would not be two years long, but weeks or months. But a new primary system would be needed, that's for sure.
jacquesm 10y ago
The military are what historically kept Turkey from sliding into the abyss on several occasions. Erdogan recognized this and got rid of those who could have stepped in after the 'coup' last year because they would not have stood for it. Turkey is in for a very rough time.
- lightedman 10y ago
  Bingo. The military was organized not only for defense but to specifically prevent things like this - a religion-driven dictator - from taking over the government. Anyone that's been paying attention to Turkey for the past decade knew of this. It's one of the reasons I hang on Camfrog, the Turkish are prevalent there (although typically the ones you encounter are just trying to harass women into displaying some skin. Mention politics and their attention changes drastically.)
  - _nedR 10y ago
    So military dictatorship overthrowing democracy= good. Democratically elected islamist government = bad. Got it.
    - kerbalspacepro 10y ago
      That should be self-evident.
    - jacquesm 10y ago
      Not everything involving a voting booth is really democratic.
    - bdavisx 10y ago
      I'm not going to debate the dictatorship part of your comment, but is there a islamist government (elected or not) that has been good for human rights - or any religion based government for that matter?
      - petre 10y ago
makmanalp 10y ago
This is spot on. Not only that, but Turkey always had a tough time taking the final step into being a "true" representative democracy with similar characteristics to western democracies. From the seculars point of view, they was always worried of islamists taking over. From the nationalists point of view (who have had a lot of overlap with secularists historically), they were always afraid of kurds getting representation, which they saw as being separatist, and being secretly backed by foreign governments who benefit from division (kinda like Iran, Latin America, etc). In either case, whether you think it's justified or not, some groups got denied rights that would have been given in other countries. Erdogan and AKP's political innovation (I think) was supporting a strong muslim-nationalist identity that consolidated support from both camps (thus denying them to the opposition) and created a very coherent story for why people should support him. He also garnered a LOT of support from the international scene, especially western Europe and the US, when he got elected. It got hailed as a step forward for democracy, who willfully ignored and dismissed Erdogan's much more shady history. And, admittedly, Erdogan did start out as a right-of-center leader, which helped people suspend some hangups. He made a lot of changes that helped his base in the long run - easier access to stable government jobs, better public services, etc. Meanwhile, eventually, the secular camp's worries would be proven correct, of course, but in a slightly different way than they anticipated. Re: MHP, it is mostly just grasping for relevance in an age where its voter base could just as easily go to AKP and CHP, which would reduce its overall support to less than 10% of the country, which would mean that they don't get seats in parliament (a law passed during the secular era to deny representation leftist / "communist" / kurdish / extremist groups, depending on who you ask). --- edit re: whether "Islam" caused all this https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14131444 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14131444
- lightedman 10y ago
  The US wants Erdogan in power. It gives us another convenient target later on whereas before we had no major reason to bother with Turkey. Turkey is rife with resources, from oil to gems. I say this as I look at a slab of agate cut from a $6K chunk of Turkish tube agate - http://i.imgur.com/dYyaTkL.jpg http://i.imgur.com/dYyaTkL.jpg
  - 10y ago
low_battery 10y ago
Your analysis implies far right fractions had a big role in this referendum, which to be honest does not ring correct, on the contrary, even though leader of MHP asked to support yes vote, they overwhelmingly voted no, something effectively destroying his leader position, and perhaps his party.

sukruh 10y 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 10y 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 10y 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.

diminish 10y ago

Never have seen so many lies, and fake news bundled in one comment. Come on don't waste people's time. Edit: And clearly I have voted No in this referendum. Just such spaghetti bundles of false information isn't needed. Sorry.

virmundi 10y ago
As an American I have no idea about the veracity of the GP claims or your claims that they are false. Can others step in and make HN great again by having a cool, reasoned debate about the history of thr Turks within the confines of their democratic endeavors? I would like to know more. I've never understood the parliamentarian system. I'm use to a presidential system with checks and balances.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- _delirium 10y ago
  The clearest article I've found on current factions (not as much on the history of the Turkish state), from an admittedly left-wing perspective, is this one: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/04/erdogan-constitutional-amendments-coup-akp/ https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/04/erdogan-constitutional-am...
  - makmanalp 10y ago
    Might I also suggest: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/13/magazine/inside-turkeys-purge.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/13/magazine/inside-turkeys-p...
- cryptonector 10y ago
  OT, but parliamentarian systems with first-past-the-post election of MPs seem to work very well. That's basically the entire anglo-saxon world minus the U.S. Advantages of the parliamentarian system over presidential include: - short campaigns where the parties run, rather than personalities - short campaigns because the PM can call snap elections any time - parliament is usually not adversarial towards the government - elections are less frequent Disadvantages: - parliament is usually not adversarial towards the govt - elections are less frequent What I'd like to see is a way for the House of the U.S. Congress, and the POTUS, to be able to do something similar to calling snap elections: accelerate the election schedule by shortening the terms of currently-sitting congress-critters and the POTUS. (Presidential term limits would have to be adjusted to an amount of time rather than number of terms.) I think this would give us the best of both worlds. It would give Congress a huge check on the POTUS and vice-versa: whenever POTUS is very unpopular Congress could call elections, and whenever POTUS is very popular POTUS could call elections. And campaign seasons would be much shorter: presidential campaigns would not be two years long, but weeks or months. But a new primary system would be needed, that's for sure.

jacquesm 10y ago

The military are what historically kept Turkey from sliding into the abyss on several occasions. Erdogan recognized this and got rid of those who could have stepped in after the 'coup' last year because they would not have stood for it. Turkey is in for a very rough time.

lightedman 10y ago
Bingo. The military was organized not only for defense but to specifically prevent things like this - a religion-driven dictator - from taking over the government. Anyone that's been paying attention to Turkey for the past decade knew of this. It's one of the reasons I hang on Camfrog, the Turkish are prevalent there (although typically the ones you encounter are just trying to harass women into displaying some skin. Mention politics and their attention changes drastically.)
- _nedR 10y ago
  So military dictatorship overthrowing democracy= good. Democratically elected islamist government = bad. Got it.
  - kerbalspacepro 10y ago
    That should be self-evident.
  - jacquesm 10y ago
    Not everything involving a voting booth is really democratic.
  - bdavisx 10y ago
    I'm not going to debate the dictatorship part of your comment, but is there a islamist government (elected or not) that has been good for human rights - or any religion based government for that matter?
    - petre 10y ago

makmanalp 10y ago

This is spot on. Not only that, but Turkey always had a tough time taking the final step into being a "true" representative democracy with similar characteristics to western democracies. From the seculars point of view, they was always worried of islamists taking over. From the nationalists point of view (who have had a lot of overlap with secularists historically), they were always afraid of kurds getting representation, which they saw as being separatist, and being secretly backed by foreign governments who benefit from division (kinda like Iran, Latin America, etc). In either case, whether you think it's justified or not, some groups got denied rights that would have been given in other countries. Erdogan and AKP's political innovation (I think) was supporting a strong muslim-nationalist identity that consolidated support from both camps (thus denying them to the opposition) and created a very coherent story for why people should support him. He also garnered a LOT of support from the international scene, especially western Europe and the US, when he got elected. It got hailed as a step forward for democracy, who willfully ignored and dismissed Erdogan's much more shady history. And, admittedly, Erdogan did start out as a right-of-center leader, which helped people suspend some hangups. He made a lot of changes that helped his base in the long run - easier access to stable government jobs, better public services, etc. Meanwhile, eventually, the secular camp's worries would be proven correct, of course, but in a slightly different way than they anticipated. Re: MHP, it is mostly just grasping for relevance in an age where its voter base could just as easily go to AKP and CHP, which would reduce its overall support to less than 10% of the country, which would mean that they don't get seats in parliament (a law passed during the secular era to deny representation leftist / "communist" / kurdish / extremist groups, depending on who you ask). --- edit re: whether "Islam" caused all this https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14131444 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14131444

lightedman 10y ago
The US wants Erdogan in power. It gives us another convenient target later on whereas before we had no major reason to bother with Turkey. Turkey is rife with resources, from oil to gems. I say this as I look at a slab of agate cut from a $6K chunk of Turkish tube agate - http://i.imgur.com/dYyaTkL.jpg http://i.imgur.com/dYyaTkL.jpg
- 10y ago

low_battery 10y ago

Your analysis implies far right fractions had a big role in this referendum, which to be honest does not ring correct, on the contrary, even though leader of MHP asked to support yes vote, they overwhelmingly voted no, something effectively destroying his leader position, and perhaps his party.