Turkey

[Revan]

Erdogan just had his Palpatine moment. Turkey are doomed now, IMO. He will crush any remaining opposition, and will purge the army installing as its leaders only his pawns (he has been doing this already in the last few years) in order to ensure that this won't ever happen again.

A decade or two from now, Turkey will be a wahhabi state, like the other EU/US 'allies' in the Gulf. A century of secularism is over.

 

[africanspur]

the military doesn´t need to get involved in the USA. Political opposition and courts can do the job. At least in any realistic scenario. In Turkey the situation seems to be quite different and these groups struggle to hold him accountable. What do you think about his current reforms? They are now inevitable and in the end turkey won´t be a democracy any more. He is already prosecuting MPs, politicians, journalists, intellectuals, and other influential people for ridiculous reasons to silence them.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't. A failed coup is really the worst of all worlds, because now Erdogan will be able to crush any opposition, that is left.

Those things develop organically and over time, just as they did in the West and not at a barrel of a gun and tank shells on their own people.

Political opposition has also had the chance to win multiple elections before. Where was their support then, before Erdogan consolidated power as much as he has now?

I think his current reforms are bullshit. I think he is a despicable man. I think secularism is the best form of government and that mixing any religion in politics is wrong. But a coup is not the answer.

I have to say, I find the way some of my Turkish friends (and clearly many on here) talk about AKP voters to be despicable. They are human beings. Who may vote for the AKP because *shock horror* they may have seen their life get better over the past 10 years. They may want to see their religious beliefs represented and resent the army continuously launching coups and banning parties with their religious beliefs. They may not all be slobbering peasants who get paid to vote for the AKP. They may not all be as cool and secular as the great liberal turks of the cities who are liberal only when it concerns themselves and their group. They may even have liked the peace process he was formerly advancing with the kurds (hence why so many kurds previously voted for him). But I guess it's easier to just dehumanise them.

I don't like religion in politics. I don't like Erdogan. I also don't like the major secular parties in Turkey either. If I was a turk, I'd probably either not vote or vote for the hdp. But the secularists always running to the army for a solution.... Not right.

I come from a region plagued by military coups and counter coups. My wife's father is from a middle eastern country also dominated by the military.

The military are not good.

 

[rotherham_red]

It's not Turkey's particular secularists that are seen as paragons of virtue; it's the concept of secularism that is seen as fundamentally important in the West. You obviously don't share this viewpoint. But even if Atatürk was a genocidal dictator (and he was), secularism itself is still a very good thing. It's far better than the alternative.

Again, I think we'll have to agree to disagree. Secularism is great in a Western context, and that's precisely because it came through incrementally and gradually over a period of 4-500 years. Trying to bring it through in one go was and is a recipe for disaster.

The arrogance of the West who think they can just transplant secularism and western democratic systems in to places like the Middle East, and where they've failed, they've helped to prop up deeply unpopular and undemocratic tyrants, is what has caused so much death and destruction there.

 

[rotherham_red]

China's economic development is not something the West could copy. It's something the West has already gone through (industrialization, urbanisation etc.). It has nothing to do with the merits of democracy.

Fully understand that, but my point was regarding China's pace of development, which has far outstripped what the West had accomplished. They basically had their industrial revolution in something silly like 20 years!

 

[skidmark]

I am not supporting Erdogan, how did you come up with that? I support him in this case though because I have to choose between him and military, and this military is probably worse option than him.

But in general, I don't support Erdogan.

As for the hypocritical thing, supporting secularism and military's politics is hypocricy itself.

It's not hypocrisy, it's a perfectly valid perspective, a point of view.

 

[Siorac]

Again, I think we'll have to agree to disagree. Secularism is great in a Western context, and that's precisely because it came through incrementally and gradually over a period of 4-500 years. Trying to bring it through in one go was and is a recipe for disaster.

The arrogance of the West who think they can just transplant secularism and western democratic systems in to places like the Middle East, and where they've failed, they've helped to prop up deeply unpopular and undemocratic tyrants, is what has caused so much death and destruction there.

I agree that Western intervention in political systems is generally a bad thing. But we were talking about why one would support the Turkish military vs Erdogan. No one here encouraged NATO to get involved as far as I'm aware.

 

[Revan]

Again, I think we'll have to agree to disagree. Secularism is great in a Western context, and that's precisely because it came through incrementally and gradually over a period of 4-500 years. Trying to bring it through in one go was and is a recipe for disaster.

The arrogance of the West who think they can just transplant secularism and western democratic systems in to places like the Middle East, and where they've failed, they've helped to prop up deeply unpopular and undemocratic tyrants, is what has caused so much death and destruction there.

Turkey has been secular for over a century though. It is after Erdogan that the secularism is being threatened. And from the history, we know that secularism is a good thing.

 

[Siorac]

Fully understand that, but my point was regarding China's pace of development, which has far outstripped what the West had accomplished. They basically had their industrial revolution in something silly like 20 years!

Hey, they already had the blueprint! That's basically cheating.

 

[Amar__]

It's not hypocrisy, it's a perfectly valid perspective, a point of view.

It would be if the military are secularists, but they aren't. They obviously aren't democratic either judging by the coup.

 

[Revan]

It would be if the military are secularists, but they aren't. They obviously aren't democratic either judging by the coup.

Military typically are secularists in Turkey, and have been so in each of the coups. They obviously aren't democratic, after all you can't both do a coup and be democratic at the same time (unless the government wasn't democratically elected).

On the other side, Erdogan is a dictator and him being democratically elected means near as much as Putin or Kim Jung being so. Everyone who disagrees with him goes to jail, obviously in the end he is going to win any election,

 

[antihenry]

Again, I think we'll have to agree to disagree. Secularism is great in a Western context, and that's precisely because it came through incrementally and gradually over a period of 4-500 years. Trying to bring it through in one go was and is a recipe for disaster.

The arrogance of the West who think they can just transplant secularism and western democratic systems in to places like the Middle East, and where they've failed, they've helped to prop up deeply unpopular and undemocratic tyrants, is what has caused so much death and destruction there.

Very well put. There's nothing to add, really.

 

[Siorac]

Turkey has been secular for over a century though. It is after Erdogan that the secularism is being threatened. And from the history, we know that secularism is a good thing.

And their secularism wasn't introduced by the West either. Kemal actually had to get Western troops out of the country before he could enact his reforms.

 

[rotherham_red]

Turkey has been secular for over a century though. It is after Erdogan that the secularism is being threatened. And from the history, we know that secularism is a good thing.

Secularism came through pretty much straight after the First World War, and the process was anything but harmonious or organic.

 

[skidmark]

It would be if the military are secularists, but they aren't. They obviously aren't democratic either judging by the coup.

None of that makes the CAF hypocritical. As I read this thread, many of the posts seem to be well informed, and people have adopted a position based on information - not just based on some bias against either the religious or secularist political models (which you charge of hypocrisy implies). Frankly, your own post is hypocritical - you're adopting some higher position - that your own opinion is somehow more valid than others' on here - but you are not arguing particularly well why the position you have adopted might be right.

 

[Siorac]

Secularism came through pretty much straight after the First World War, and the process was anything but harmonious or organic.

It still came from within. It wasn't imposed upon Turkey by other powers.

And the history of the West is full of similar events. Abolishment of slavery in the United States, for example, wasn't a harmonious or organic process. It required a bloody civil war.

 

[rotherham_red]

I agree that Western intervention in political systems is generally a bad thing. But we were talking about why one would support the Turkish military vs Erdogan. No one here encouraged NATO to get involved as far as I'm aware.

Yeah, it was just an addendum to my original point, which was that Turkey's secularism didn't come through on its own volition, or the will of the people. It came through the force of will of one man, irrespective of what the people had desired. I'm sorry, but I can't agree with something like that, and to do so, is a subversion of the will of the people.

 

[africanspur]

Military typically are secularists in Turkey, and have been so in each of the coups. They obviously aren't democratic, after all you can't both do a coup and be democratic at the same time (unless the government wasn't democratically elected).

On the other side, Erdogan is a dictator and him being democratically elected means near as much as Putin or Kim Jung being so. Everyone who disagrees with him goes to jail, obviously in the end he is going to win any election,

With all due respect, that's absolutely nonsensical. No its nothing like Putin and Kim, as evidenced by the 3 major opposition parties in Turkey that make up large portion of parliament who have denounced the coup.

 

[Amar__]

Military typically are secularists in Turkey, and have been so in each of the coups. They obviously aren't democratic, after all you can't both do a coup and be democratic at the same time (unless the government wasn't democratically elected).

As I said earlier, I am not that much informed in the whole situation, but as far as I am aware the military is pretty much in war with Kurds, so how is it possible that they represent secular politics?

 

[rotherham_red]

It still came from within. It wasn't imposed upon Turkey by other powers.

And the history of the West is full of similar events. Abolishment of slavery in the United States, for example, wasn't a harmonious or organic process. It required a bloody civil war.

Read my post above

 

[Revan]

With all due respect, that's absolutely nonsensical. No its nothing like Putin and Kim, as evidenced by the 3 major opposition parties in Turkey that make up large portion of parliament who have denounced the coup.

Kim would easily win 90%+ of any election in N.Korea. Wouldn't make him any less of a dictator than he is now.

 

[Revan]

As I said earlier, I am not that much informed in the whole situation, but as far as I am aware the military is pretty much in war with Kurds, so how is it possible that they represent secular politics?

What has to do being in war with Kurds with secularism?

 

[JPRouve]

As I said earlier, I am not that much informed in the whole situation, but as far as I am aware the military is pretty much in war with Kurds, so how is it possible that they represent secular politics?

It's not for religious reasons and therefore has nothing to do with secularity.

 

[africanspur]

Kim would easily win 90%+ of any election in N.Korea. Wouldn't make him any less of a dictator than he is now.

Yes he would, for many reasons, not least the lack of any other political force at all, as well as the populations (and politicians) fear of running against him.

Which is not true in Turkey. The secularists are a large bunch. The kurds showed their disapproval of the AKP, who they tended to support, by voting in the hdp. Then of course there are the ultra nationalists who despise anything kurdish and who see themselves (rightly or wrongly) as the proponents of Attaturk.

Let's also be clear that the AKP have won multiple elections, including clearly the first one when they were not in power.

I know it's almost impossible for some on here to understand clearly but some people may actually vote for the AKP because they feel they would make and have made their lives better? Crazy thought I know.

These ridiculous comparisons do nobody any favours.

 

[rotherham_red]

Turkey has been secular for over a century though. It is after Erdogan that the secularism is being threatened. And from the history, we know that secularism is a good thing.

Can you really say that though in the case of Turkey? Secularism has brought that country bouts of rule by military junta, corruption, and the mismanagement of the economy by the secular elites, and much of the country stagnating economically and in terms of living standards.

Erdogan comes in and revitalises that country to the extent that it is now seen as potentially one of the major world powers in the post-Bretton Woods global system and it has a hugely important and significant role to play in the Middle East. It's actually a major regional power in its own right. That would never have happened under the watch of the secularists.

 

[Revan]

Can you really say that though in the case of Turkey? Secularism has brought that country bouts of rule by military junta, corruption, and the mismanagement of the economy by the secular elites, and much of the country stagnating economically and in terms of living standards.

Erdogan comes in and revitalises that country to the extent that it is now seen as potentially one of the major world powers in the post-Bretton Woods global system and it has a hugely important and significant role to play in the Middle East. It's actually a major regional power in its own right. That would never have happened under the watch of the secularists.

Someone might argue that the secularism is the reason why Turkey has been doing much better than the countries in the region who have been lead by Islamists (of course, some of them being filthy rich on oil helped them be good economically).

Erdogan has been doing wonders about the economy, there is no doubt there, and for some people that is all that matters (which is fine). But on the other side, he has put Turkey in a dangerous road, and a few decades when the secular laws get replaced by Islamic laws, and it is difficult to see a bright future there.

 

[Siorac]

Yeah, it was just an addendum to my original point, which was that Turkey's secularism didn't come through on its own volition, or the will of the people. It came through the force of will of one man, irrespective of what the people had desired. I'm sorry, but I can't agree with something like that, and to do so, is a subversion of the will of the people.

In earlier posts you expressed your distaste for democracy but now you can't accept something that happened in an anti-democratic way (Atatürk's reforms)? That's a bit odd.

 

[Revan]

Yes he would, for many reasons, not least the lack of any other political force at all, as well as the populations (and politicians) fear of running against him.

Which is not true in Turkey. The secularists are a large bunch. The kurds showed their disapproval of the AKP, who they tended to support, by voting in the hdp. Then of course there are the ultra nationalists who despise anything kurdish and who see themselves (rightly or wrongly) as the proponents of Attaturk.

Let's also be clear that the AKP have won multiple elections, including clearly the first one when they were not in power.

I know it's almost impossible for some on here to understand clearly but some people may actually vote for the AKP because they feel they would make and have made their lives better? Crazy thought I know.

These ridiculous comparisons do nobody any favours.

You forgot to mention that he has arrested a lot of people who were either opposition or just critics of him. Makes more easy to win election after election if you do so, right?

In addition, pleb are stupid. Just see in US, when there is a real possibility that Donald fecking Trump of all people will become president after a perfectly legit election.

 

[africanspur]

Someone might argue that the secularism is the reason why Turkey has been doing much better than the countries in the region who have been lead by Islamists (of course, some of them being filthy rich on oil helped them be good economically).

Erdogan has been doing wonders about the economy, there is no doubt there, and for some people that is all that matters (which is fine). But on the other side, he has put Turkey in a dangerous road, and a few decades when the secular laws get replaced by Islamic laws, and it is difficult to see a bright future there.

You're comparing turkey to Arab countries. Which are basically all fecked whether they're led by a secular dictator, a monarch (secular or not) or religious dictators.

 

[syrian_scholes]

I look at a conflict and if one side is shouting Allahu Akbar, then generally I'm with the other guy.

I'm not cool with religious based government. Shame this seems to have failed.

You do know that we say allahu akbar a lot every day? Are you just against Islam as a whole? I'm sorry but your post is the worst thing I've ever read on the caf.

 

[Revan]

You're comparing turkey to Arab countries. Which are basically all fecked whether they're led by a secular dictator, a monarch (secular or not) or religious dictators.

Generally, those who have been lead by a secularist dictator have been better (at least when it comes to human liberties) than those lead by a religious dictator.

Difficult to compare the economy. Typically, those who were rich on oil were better than the others.

I would say the same about Turkey. Erdogan improved economy in a time when all the big underdeveloped countries have been doing so. That is fine, but shouldn't come at the cost of changing the country to a religious dictatorship. Which now will inevitably happen.

 

[africanspur]

You forgot to mention that he has arrested a lot of people who were either opposition or just critics of him. Makes more easy to win election after election if you do so, right?

In addition, pleb are stupid. Just see in US, when there is a real possibility that Donald fecking Trump of all people will become president after a perfectly legit election.

No I haven't forgotten that actually. If you'd read my posts, you'll see that I think Erdogan is despicable and I think secularism is the way forward as the best form of government.

My point was that comparing him to putin or Kim is ridiculous and false and the fact that, especially recently, he has become a lot more authoritarian does not shy away from the fact that he has won multiple elections (including obviously the first where the akp were not in charge) and has a lot of legitimate supporters, not just paid off slobbering peasants.

So? What then, we abandon democracy because the plebs are too stupid to understand?

 

[rotherham_red]

Someone might argue that the secularism is the reason why Turkey has been doing much better than the countries in the region who have been lead by Islamists (of course, some of them being filthy rich on oil helped them be good economically).

Erdogan has been doing wonders about the economy, there is no doubt there, and for some people that is all that matters (which is fine). But on the other side, he has put Turkey in a dangerous road, and a few decades when the secular laws get replaced by Islamic laws, and it is difficult to see a bright future there.

I'd actually argue the opposite. The gulf Arab countries are all non-secular and are either monarchies or theocracies, and they are all prosperous and affluent. Politically is another matter and before anyone thinks I'm an apologist for the likes of Saudi and the UAE/Qatar etc, I'm 100% not.

The secularists can claim no credit for the economic rejuvenation of the country, they were the ones who held it back.

And Ataturk was just as bad, if not worse in his supression of freedoms, yet people in here seem to love his legacy. As far as I'm aware, it's still an offence to denigrate him publicly. Surely you can see why supporting the legacy of such a man, and deriding Erdogan comes across as just a little bit hypocritical?

 

[JPRouve]

No I haven't forgotten that actually. If you'd read my posts, you'll see that I think Erdogan is despicable and I think secularism is the way forward as the best form of government.

My point was that comparing him to putin or Kim is ridiculous and false and the fact that, especially recently, he has become a lot more authoritarian does not shy away from the fact that he has won multiple elections (including obviously the first where the akp were not in charge) and has a lot of legitimate supporters, not just paid off slobbering peasants.

So? What then, we abandon democracy because the plebs are too stupid to understand?

You are allowed to send people to the ballot after a coup, that's not impossible.

 

[africanspur]

Generally, those who have been lead by a secularist dictator have been better (at least when it comes to human liberties) than those lead by a religious dictator.

Difficult to compare the economy. Typically, those who were rich on oil were better than the others.

I would say the same about Turkey. Erdogan improved economy in a time when all the big underdeveloped countries have been doing so. That is fine, but shouldn't come at the cost of changing the country to a religious dictatorship. Which now will inevitably happen.

That's not even slightly true though. Secularist dictators have unleashed atrocities on the same scale or worse than anything the religious ones have done in the Arab world. Which seems to be the main reference point here. Human and political liberties are non existent and it seems strange to me that you consider this a win, considering you seem upset at Erdogan shutting down political opposition.

End up in one of Assads, Mubaraks or Saddams prisons and then tell me about human liberties.

If all the big underdeveloped economies were doing it, why haven't the Arab states (again the comparison) been doing it?

 

[Revan]

So? What then, we abandon democracy because the plebs are too stupid to understand?

Probably not, cause the other options are worse. But a time-limit on how many years you can be in high profile positions should be introduced. Erdogan has essentially been 2 decades as the leader of Turkey.

I don't know why we can't compare Erdogan with Putin. Both are dictators who win 'democratic' elections. Both point on nationalist/religious ideals to get their votes. Both arrest everyone who dares to go against them. Both have done wonders for the economy of their state. Kim might be a worse comparison, but I think that Erdogan with Putin are quite similar to each other

 

[Amar__]

What has to do being in war with Kurds with secularism?

It's not for religious reasons and therefore has nothing to do with secularity.

I am sorry, I have no idea why I keep connecting it with the secularism, I haven't had my coffee yet. I meant how they are supporting equality and freedom while hating Kurds?

 

[africanspur]

You are allowed to send people to the ballot after a coup, that's not impossible.

And when the plebs stupidly elect someone we don't like, again, just another coup? Few dozen dead, shell parliament, press the reset button and go again until the idiots understand?

 

[Revan]

End up in one of Assads, Mubaraks or Saddams prisons and then tell me about human liberties.

Would take each of them compared to S. Arabia, ISIS and Al-Qaeda.

 

[JPRouve]

That's not even slightly true though. Secularist dictators have unleashed atrocities on the same scale or worse than anything the religious ones have done in the Arab world. Which seems to be the main reference point here. Human and political liberties are non existent and it seems strange to me that you consider this a win, considering you seem upset at Erdogan shutting down political opposition.

End up in one of Assads, Mubaraks or Saddams prisons and then tell me about human liberties.

If all the big underdeveloped economies were doing it, why haven't the Arab states (again the comparison) been doing it?

Which Arab states?

 

[Revan]

And when the plebs stupidly elect someone we don't like, again, just another coup? Few dozen dead, shell parliament, press the reset button and go again until the idiots understand?

We choose a king, and when the king doesn't behave, we kill the king. Fine with me.

Alternately, we choose a king and then after 4-8 years we exile the king. Not make the king queen, and then empower the position of the queen. Until the queen decides to become king again, and then we empower the position of the king. Which is what Erdogan and Putin have been doing.