3 ms·

> this is a positive event if you think Turkey should move forward from the authoritarianism and incompetent economic management Forward may very well be more

> this is a positive event if you think Turkey should move forward from the authoritarianism and incompetent economic management Forward may very well be more of the same or worse. Only time will tell if their system is systemically and irrevocably broken.

enraged_camel 3y ago
What makes you think it may be irrevocably broken? Worth noting that unlike, say, the USA, Turkey does not have a constitution that was written two hundred plus years ago and is virtually impossible to change or update.
- Retric 3y ago
  There’s been 5 amendments to the US constitution since 1960. In 1971 it took 100 days to pass the 26th amendment lowering voting age to 18. The largest barrier is it doesn’t have that many rules people want to change. It’s a short document and many things like requiring the president to be 35 just don’t come up very frequently. The few things that apply frequently such as free speech have broad support.
  - skyyler 3y ago
    > In 1971 it took 100 days to pass the 26th amendment lowering voting age to 18. I was taught in history class that this was rushed so quickly because congress thought it would reduce the number of student protests.
- koolba 3y ago
  > Worth noting that unlike, say, the USA, Turkey does not have a constitution that was written two hundred plus years ago and is virtually impossible to change or update. That’s a feature, not a bug. It’s what keeps the USA from devolving to the 51% mob rule flavor of the month after each election.
  - TremendousJudge 3y ago
    Many countries update their constitutions much more regularly and don't have that sort of thing happen to them. Why do you think the US would be any different?
    - codyb 3y ago
      The US has a large number of fairly undemocratic institutions such as Congress (supremely gerrymandered in many states), the electoral college (frequently favors the person who lost the popular vote) and the Senate (which rewards the same number of reps to 39,000,000 people as it does to 500,000 people). These institutions offer routes for extremist positions to take power which they could then entrench with a more malleable constitution.
      - TremendousJudge 3y ago
        These "undemocratic" institutions only exist precisely because the constitution is hard to change. The electoral college, the gerrymandering, the shape of the Senate, they are all things that the constitution already allows. The takeover of power has already happened, the US is trapped in a 2-party system that basically everybody hates, but it's so entrenched into the culture that it's unthinkable to change it.
        codyb 3y ago
        The 2 party system’s okay. It’s not the worst when it’s working alright. Right now it’s not great lol. But this system has survived 227 years or so for a reason. At the end of the day the Senate was actually a bulwark against extremism in these last elections in many ways. I’m not sure what you mean by takeover of power as if there’s some sort of cabal out there. There’s a lot of different vying interests out there and some have more power than they should, and this isn’t our shiningest moment in general, but I don’t necessarily agree that there’s been some sort of “takeover”.
  - lotsofpulp 3y ago
    > 51% mob rule How is this distinguishable from democracy?
- psychlops 3y ago
  It's hard to put my finger on the problem. Speaking generally and in only my opinion, Turks have a general lack of faith in any public system. The court system has barely worked, the parliamentary system was recently crippled. I could go on, but to keep this short it's not clear that there is a cohesive political will to move toward a rule by system rather than rule by person. There is a large segment of the population willing to vote for a personality and an astonishing tolerance for key personnel to be changed when the new person is voted in. Consider that their economy is going to break (further) no matter which candidate gets chosen and there will be little room for improvement.
- codyb 3y ago
  To be fair, having a constitution that’s nearly impossible to change or update may be helpful during years when authoritarians are in power.
  - krapp 3y ago
    To be fair, any authoritarian worth worrying about will either simply not care or secretly staff Congress and the courts with sympathizers who will do a Palpatine and "make it legal." The Constitution is just a piece of paper. Its only power lies in the willingness of people to believe in the political fiction that is "law." Trump is the closest the US has come to a truly dangerous authoritarian so far, but he wasn't competent enough to get his shit together and really take over. But he could have. He had millions of people convinced the Democrats were involved in an international communist conspiracy to steal the election. People within the government and military leadership openly espousing their support for a coup. Support within law enforcement. Half the country willing to ride or die for him. And ironically his greatest success in terms of forcing his political agenda was completely legal - stacking the Supreme Court with ideologues. Doesn't really matter how hard the Constitution is to change when nine unelected people with lifetime appointments can just decide what it means.

enraged_camel 3y ago

What makes you think it may be irrevocably broken? Worth noting that unlike, say, the USA, Turkey does not have a constitution that was written two hundred plus years ago and is virtually impossible to change or update.

Retric 3y ago
There’s been 5 amendments to the US constitution since 1960. In 1971 it took 100 days to pass the 26th amendment lowering voting age to 18. The largest barrier is it doesn’t have that many rules people want to change. It’s a short document and many things like requiring the president to be 35 just don’t come up very frequently. The few things that apply frequently such as free speech have broad support.
- skyyler 3y ago
  > In 1971 it took 100 days to pass the 26th amendment lowering voting age to 18. I was taught in history class that this was rushed so quickly because congress thought it would reduce the number of student protests.
koolba 3y ago
> Worth noting that unlike, say, the USA, Turkey does not have a constitution that was written two hundred plus years ago and is virtually impossible to change or update. That’s a feature, not a bug. It’s what keeps the USA from devolving to the 51% mob rule flavor of the month after each election.
- TremendousJudge 3y ago
  Many countries update their constitutions much more regularly and don't have that sort of thing happen to them. Why do you think the US would be any different?
  - codyb 3y ago
    The US has a large number of fairly undemocratic institutions such as Congress (supremely gerrymandered in many states), the electoral college (frequently favors the person who lost the popular vote) and the Senate (which rewards the same number of reps to 39,000,000 people as it does to 500,000 people). These institutions offer routes for extremist positions to take power which they could then entrench with a more malleable constitution.
    - TremendousJudge 3y ago
      These "undemocratic" institutions only exist precisely because the constitution is hard to change. The electoral college, the gerrymandering, the shape of the Senate, they are all things that the constitution already allows. The takeover of power has already happened, the US is trapped in a 2-party system that basically everybody hates, but it's so entrenched into the culture that it's unthinkable to change it.
      - codyb 3y ago
        The 2 party system’s okay. It’s not the worst when it’s working alright. Right now it’s not great lol. But this system has survived 227 years or so for a reason. At the end of the day the Senate was actually a bulwark against extremism in these last elections in many ways. I’m not sure what you mean by takeover of power as if there’s some sort of cabal out there. There’s a lot of different vying interests out there and some have more power than they should, and this isn’t our shiningest moment in general, but I don’t necessarily agree that there’s been some sort of “takeover”.
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  > 51% mob rule How is this distinguishable from democracy?
psychlops 3y ago
It's hard to put my finger on the problem. Speaking generally and in only my opinion, Turks have a general lack of faith in any public system. The court system has barely worked, the parliamentary system was recently crippled. I could go on, but to keep this short it's not clear that there is a cohesive political will to move toward a rule by system rather than rule by person. There is a large segment of the population willing to vote for a personality and an astonishing tolerance for key personnel to be changed when the new person is voted in. Consider that their economy is going to break (further) no matter which candidate gets chosen and there will be little room for improvement.
codyb 3y ago
To be fair, having a constitution that’s nearly impossible to change or update may be helpful during years when authoritarians are in power.
- krapp 3y ago
  To be fair, any authoritarian worth worrying about will either simply not care or secretly staff Congress and the courts with sympathizers who will do a Palpatine and "make it legal." The Constitution is just a piece of paper. Its only power lies in the willingness of people to believe in the political fiction that is "law." Trump is the closest the US has come to a truly dangerous authoritarian so far, but he wasn't competent enough to get his shit together and really take over. But he could have. He had millions of people convinced the Democrats were involved in an international communist conspiracy to steal the election. People within the government and military leadership openly espousing their support for a coup. Support within law enforcement. Half the country willing to ride or die for him. And ironically his greatest success in terms of forcing his political agenda was completely legal - stacking the Supreme Court with ideologues. Doesn't really matter how hard the Constitution is to change when nine unelected people with lifetime appointments can just decide what it means.