Turkey
- Thread starter Neutral
- Start date
The problem is that the Army in most countries, if not all, is responsible for the integrity of the territory, the kurds want to leave with a part of the Turkish territory and Armies tend to hate that.
I think modern western democracy is a sham and a long way away from the principles and ideals espoused by people like Mill, Locke, and the popular reform movements such as the Chartists. What good it used to have, simply isn't there anymore and it isn't fit for purpose.
Ataturk had suppressed the population, and there was no tangible benefit for the people as a result of it either. Transplanting those reforms in such a brutal way benefited no one but him and his cronies.
Yep I completely agree on time limits. I think it's one of the best things about American presidential democracy and should be rolled out to Congress etc too.
Because the atmosphere in Russia is far more dictatorial and the system is presidential. I know Erdogan is trying to change turkey to a similar system but it is generally a parliamentary system. Putin hasn't done wonders. And from what I understand, elections are conducted in a very different atmosphere in Russia compared to Turkey (though I agree that Turkey is moving more in that direction than towards an open liberal Democracy).
I understand where you're coming from, I've been to Turkey six times and traveled all over the country, including the east. I've seen the economic benefits of the AK Party's policies in places like Urfa and the surrounding countryside, where irrigation techniques and the Euphrates dam have turned a large area of semi-desert green. I understand exactly why the mass of conservative Anatolians support Erdogan.
Liberal democrats in the Western sense are short on the ground in Turkey, certainly in politics. It basically comes down to a choice between authoritarian secularists backed by the military, and an increasingly authoritarian (but popular) Islamist demagogue, whose policies since 2011 have helped facilitate (if not directly support) the rise of ISIS, attempt to quash Kurdish hopes in Syria, aggressively quash popular protests in 2013, give Turkey one of the worst records in the world on press freedoms, drag Turkey into a war in Syria, have Turkey fall out with practically all its neighbours at one stage or another, crack down on internet freedoms, increasingly attempt to concentrate power in his owns hands by having the constitution changed (that will happen now quite soon IMO), and on and on. Surely you can understand exactly why people might be anti-Erdogan? But not necessarily pro-military?
On Turkey's history with the 'secularists' and Ataturk. You can blame them all you want for Turkey's economic stagnation and basket-case politics by the 90s, but the achievement of Ataturk and his legacy cannot be questioned. Here is the map of Turkey designated by the Treaty of Sevres in 1920:
Ataturk saved the country from partition among the European powers. We wouldn't even be talking about Turkey today without his actions. His legacy set Turkey on a path clearly different from that which the remainder of the Ottoman lands took post-WW1, kept Turkey out of the region's horrible politics and basically made Turkey the strong independent modern state that it is today. To discredit the achievements of Ataturk while denouncing others for doing the same with the AK Party's achievements is inconsistent, and seems to me to be based purely on your distaste for secularism - which is fair enough, I have my own biases and admit I consider Ataturk to be one of the greatest men of the 20th century.
Last edited:
This is a great and insightful post as ever 2cents, and I agree with a lot of it. Like I said before, Erdogan is a man of many faults and I'm certainly not blind to them. His egoism in his role as President is one concern that I have, as I fear he may try and concentrate his power to the benefit of himself and his cronies and not the country as a whole, which is something that has already occurred though on a smaller scale.I understand where you're coming from, I've been to Turkey six times and traveled all over the country, including the east. I've seen the economic benefits of the AK Party's policies in places like Urfa and the surrounding countryside, where irrigation techniques and the Euphrates dam have turned a large area of semi-desert green. I understand exactly why the mass of conservative Anatolians support Erdogan.
Liberal democrats in the Western sense are short on the ground in Turkey, certainly in politics. It basically comes down to a choice between authoritarian secularists backed by the military, and an increasingly authoritarian (but popular) Islamist demagogue, whose policies since 2011 have helped facilitate (if not directly support) the rise of ISIS, attempt to quash Kurdish hopes in Syria, aggressively quash popular protests in 2013, give Turkey one of the worst records in the world on press freedoms, drag Turkey into a war in Syria, have Turkey fall out with practically all its neighbours at one stage or another, crack down on internet freedoms, increasingly attempt to concentrate power in his owns hands by having the constitution changed (that will happen now quite soon IMO), and on and on. Surely you can understand exactly why people might be anti-Erdogan? But not necessarily pro-military?
On Turkey's history with the 'secularists' and Ataturk. You can blame them all you want for Turkey's economic stagnation and basket-case politics by the 90s, but the achievement of Ataturk and his legacy cannot be questioned. Here is the map of Turkey designated by the Treaty of Sevres in 1920:
Ataturk saved the country from partition among the European powers. We wouldn't even be talking about Turkey today without his actions. His legacy set Turkey on a path clearly different from that which the remainder of the Ottoman lands took post-WW1, kept Turkey out of the region's horrible politics and basically made Turkey the strong independent modern state that it is today. To discredit the achievements of Ataturk while denouncing others for doing the same with the AK Party's achievements is inconsistent, and seems to me to be based purely on your distaste for secularism - which is fair enough, I have my own biases and admit I consider Ataturk to be one of the greatest men of the 20th century.
I will disagree though, with his role in the spread of Isis. Isis was an Iraqi phenomena caused by the overspill of the effects of the 2003 invasion, that had transplanted itself into Syria to take advantage of the strife caused by the Civil War over there. Turkey's role is at best one of neglect and oversight of the threat of Isis rather than something that actively caused its spread, probably caused by his tactical misreading of the Arab Spring and the rise of Ennahda and the Ikhwan in Tunisia and Egpyt respectively. Nevertheless, the upheaval in Iraq and Syria were the defining factors in the rise of Isis.
Repression of dissent is also a bit of a moot point considering how fond Ataturk and his ilk were of supressing the Islamic seminaries and other popular protest movements.
Saying that though, I can definitely see why people dislike Erdogan, whether that be due to his personal demagoguery, or as a result of ideological differences. Yet, despite all of his faults, he is the best statesman Turkey has. And it is this, which is my point: the alternative to the AKP is markedly worse.
I will have to concede and defer to your knowledge regarding Ataturk and his role in keeping Turkey together. Though I'm not sure how strong Turkey would be today were it not for the rise of the AKP and their economic policies. His ideological successors certainly didn't inspire much by way of confidence in that regard, especially during the Cold War era.
This should have had way more abuse.
Yeaaaaah, there's a real problem with outlining isis and Al qaeda as states. Torture is torture, murder is murder, genocide is genocide, ethnic cleansing is ethnic cleansing, death is death. You don't feel any better because it is Assads security forces torturing you or Sisis forces killing your father or Saddam enacting genocide against the kurds or Nasser expelling the Jews. Those things aren't better because it is a secular dictator doing it. God only knows what people would say if the actions of these military men were done by men with beards in hats and robes. These things aren't worse when Saudi does them.
The problem becomes when the king doesn't behave but is still supported by large swathes of the population. Not to mention when even his political opponents and many who don't support the king don't support killing or exiling him in this way either, despite their reservations about the King and his group.
I think though some posts have approached that in terms of underlying message, the rest of us are attempting to have an adult discussion and have simply ignored that post and moved on.
One of the most crucial points in Turkey's post-independence history were the elections of 1950. Ataturk's party, the RPP/CHP, had ruled the country uncontested since independence, and was led by his right-hand man and successor Ismet Inonu, Ataturk having died prior to WW2. They lost the elections and Inonu handed power over peacefully to the opposition Democrat Party (subsequently overthrown during the 1960 coup). It was the first peaceful democratic change of hands in a post-Ottoman state at that time I believe and helped consolidate democratic politics in Turkey in a way that has never happened in the rest of the Middle East, so that Turkey could suffer four military coups from 1960 to 1997 and still recover its democracy. Turkey owes a lot to that decision in 1950 to accept democracy, and it was made by the number one Kemalist in the country. Something to consider when looking at these pictures of the people in Istanbul and Ankara standing up to the tanks and soldiers last night (it's becoming clear that they weren't all AKP supporters by any means).
Ataturk of course was also far from perfect - his protection of some Armenian Genocide criminals and his government's role in the Dersim Massacre (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dersim_massacre) are the major stains on his legacy. But I get the feeling that, the same way much opposition to Erdogan is fueled by a reflexive dislike of Islamist politics, the opposition to Ataturk which seems to come especially from young Muslims with a reflexive sympathetic sentiment for Islamist politics is fueled by a dislike of his secularism, and especially the largely symbolic acts he carried out like abolishing the Ottoman caliphate. It's all a substitute for real political analysis IMO.
Yes indeed you are, that is true. Let's put aside the moral aspects of simply removing a government whenever we like (by we, I mean the general we worldwide, I'm not suggesting that anyone else was involved in this issue) by using the army as another wing of an ideology.
The Turkish army has 4 times now successfully conducted coups in the past 50 years or so . It has 'returned' democracy each time, eventually, though with the lingering threat it will intervene again in certain situations. And what has happened each time? The Turkish population has a pesky habit of electing parties which the army clearly do not like and which are not ultra secular. One might even dare to say that perhaps ultra secularism, though that would be for example my preferred method of government, may just not be as popular amongst turks as people always seem to think. Menderes, Erbakan and Erdogan, stretching out over 50 years.
Why don't we be done with it and just say we don't accept their choices?
Have fun with Erdogan Turkey. The guy is becoming more and more authoritarian.
Which Arab states in reference to what? The economic advancement? Egypt, Algeria, Syria, Morocco. Take your pick, there's very few success stories there in that region.
So what then?
Great post, what I was trying to say last night. Respect the the wishes of the people.
I understand where you're coming from, I've been to Turkey six times and traveled all over the country, including the east. I've seen the economic benefits of the AK Party's policies in places like Urfa and the surrounding countryside, where irrigation techniques and the Euphrates dam have turned a large area of semi-desert green. I understand exactly why the mass of conservative Anatolians support Erdogan.
Liberal democrats in the Western sense are short on the ground in Turkey, certainly in politics. It basically comes down to a choice between authoritarian secularists backed by the military, and an increasingly authoritarian (but popular) Islamist demagogue, whose policies since 2011 have helped facilitate (if not directly support) the rise of ISIS, attempt to quash Kurdish hopes in Syria, aggressively quash popular protests in 2013, give Turkey one of the worst records in the world on press freedoms, drag Turkey into a war in Syria, have Turkey fall out with practically all its neighbours at one stage or another, crack down on internet freedoms, increasingly attempt to concentrate power in his owns hands by having the constitution changed (that will happen now quite soon IMO), and on and on. Surely you can understand exactly why people might be anti-Erdogan? But not necessarily pro-military?
On Turkey's history with the 'secularists' and Ataturk. You can blame them all you want for Turkey's economic stagnation and basket-case politics by the 90s, but the achievement of Ataturk and his legacy cannot be questioned. Here is the map of Turkey designated by the Treaty of Sevres in 1920:
Ataturk saved the country from partition among the European powers. We wouldn't even be talking about Turkey today without his actions. His legacy set Turkey on a path clearly different from that which the remainder of the Ottoman lands took post-WW1, kept Turkey out of the region's horrible politics and basically made Turkey the strong independent modern state that it is today. To discredit the achievements of Ataturk while denouncing others for doing the same with the AK Party's achievements is inconsistent, and seems to me to be based purely on your distaste for secularism - which is fair enough, I have my own biases and admit I consider Ataturk to be one of the greatest men of the 20th century.
I wouldn't go as far as calling him one of the greatest men of the century but I think this is generally an excellent post.
Philosophically I'm not a fan of coups like you said since yesterday the turks voted for him and they kind of new who he was. Now I do think that Erdogan is going to put Turkey in a bad position, in that area when you are not secular you end up being overthrown by the likes of Al Baghdadi.
Can we stop calling Turkey an 'arabic' state, given that Turks are, well, Turks?
Arabs only number about 1% of the Turkish population.
Arabs only number about 1% of the Turkish population.
Sorry, I may have missed it, who's been calling turkey an Arabic state?
Can we stop calling the Turks Polynesians?! 
Polynesians only make up about 0% of the Turkish population.
Polynesians only make up about 0% of the Turkish population.
Erdogan, the turd that wont flush.
What happens next then? I imagine he'll probably give the failed coupers the 'sharia' treatment.
What happens next then? I imagine he'll probably give the failed coupers the 'sharia' treatment.
I find this really funny, if you never tried it then don't say you'd be okay with it.
Well for one, the remaing coup plotters who haven't fecked off to Greece and elsewhere, will be tried, convicted, and executed. The world is watching, so I'm guessing there will be some semblance of due process leading up to the sentences.
Whats your problem? Turkey isn't an arabic country. Just making sure that when people compare Turkey to their neighbours in the region we're not ignoring the centuries of ethnic, cultural, and historical differences that set Turkey on a different path to the rest of the middle-east.
Who said it was ?
Why did you tag me bud? Do you think I led the coup..........And I just figured out why you tagged me. fecking hell I'm slow this morning.
Edit: so slow that I just realised it was he afternoon.
Serious question and very willing to be educated on this. What exactly are the elements of sharia law that Erdogan and the akp have enacted over the past 14 years in power?
And failed coup leaders are hardly dealt with magnanimously, regardless of the political ideology of the person they have attempted to overthrow.
As for what happens next, who knows. Probably not very good things and I imagine an already paranoid dick of a man will become even more paranoid and even more of a dick.
I don't get it, how can anyone support a coup? It doesn't reflect the will of the people, is it just because Erdogan is an islamic leader? Does anyone even know how better he made Turkey?
I admire your pro-active approach
It's a bizarre post, when no-one has said that. Just totally random.
Revan and rotherham_red's posts prompted mine. May not have straight up said 'Turkey is an arabic country therefore blah blah blah' but the lazy comparisons between Turkey and other countries in the middle east prompted me to say it.
I don't know anyone who views Turkey as an Arabic country, although its logical that it gets lumped in since its literally on the doorstep of the middle east.
Yep, he's a dick, a dictator and a leader who is changing Turkey from a secular country to an Islamist one. And we all know what happens when a country becomes a religious (Islamic) country.
Well I study modern Middle Eastern history, there really aren't any other candidates out there
. But even compared with the other European leaders of his time, he stands out IMO for getting on with the boring job of ruling and nation-building after independence. Too many leaders of the 1920s and 1930s were prone to adventurism and fell prey to the ideological trends that eventually led to the disaster of WW2. Thanks to Ataturk's legacy, Turkey managed to stay out of that calamity and chart an independent path. If someone like Enver Pasha, who planned to unite all the Turks from the Balkans to Xinjiang, had inherited the post-WW1 Turkish state, Anatolia would now look something like the Levant.
Last edited: