3 ms·

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

by whack 10y 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 10y 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 10y 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 10y 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 10y 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.
bzbarsky 10y ago
A system of checks and balances does a much better job of avoiding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority than a free-election but gridlock-less system (which is by definition much closer to direct democracy than a checks-and-balances system). Avoiding that can be quite beneficial. The real question is what you give up to get that benefit, right? It seems to me that what you give up is largely the ability to pass legislation that is only favored by a small majority of the population. Things that have overwhelming support still end up getting passed in checks-and-balances systems, generally. I, personally, consider the inability to pass things with small majority support a good thing, especially given statistical fluctuations in such support....

by whack 10y ago

jacquesm 10y 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 10y 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 10y 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 10y 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.

bzbarsky 10y ago

A system of checks and balances does a much better job of avoiding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority than a free-election but gridlock-less system (which is by definition much closer to direct democracy than a checks-and-balances system). Avoiding that can be quite beneficial. The real question is what you give up to get that benefit, right? It seems to me that what you give up is largely the ability to pass legislation that is only favored by a small majority of the population. Things that have overwhelming support still end up getting passed in checks-and-balances systems, generally. I, personally, consider the inability to pass things with small majority support a good thing, especially given statistical fluctuations in such support....