Birkibrisli wrote:zan wrote:I have to go to work now Bir, late again!
I will just say this though. Attaturk did what he had to do after going through a massive war. The threat of further political unrest helped along by outside forces was still a very big threat at the time. All his good work could have been undone within a couple of years if he did not have the foresight to do what he did with the empowering of the army. Those threats are still prevalent in and around Turkey and the only way to stop them is with entry into the EU. Then the army can step down from their responsibilities and hand the power back. I see this as being the thinking behind what went on in Eastern Europe. They knew that once in the EU the borders would be fixed so there was a free for all and we all know what happened there. The army is doing a specific job as Attaturk designed and I don’t believe he was wrong. They have acted responsibly through out those years and every time they have had to act, the country has been handed back to democracy as soon as humanly possible. Your need to see a Turkey without the army is prematurely throwing the baby out with the bath
I never said I want to see Turkey without the Army.I said I want the military to have no part in the running of the democratic processes underway...Otherwise they can kiss goodbye to joining EU for another 50 years at least...I agree with you that Turkish secularism will be safest if Turkey is in the EU.The military and its supporters just have to realise that the conditions which existed in Ataturk's time do not exist now.Time to move on,and trust that the constitution which was put in place by Kenan Evren in the coup of the 80s is strong enough to safeguard country's secularism...
zan wrote:Birkibrisli wrote:zan wrote:I have to go to work now Bir, late again!
I will just say this though. Attaturk did what he had to do after going through a massive war. The threat of further political unrest helped along by outside forces was still a very big threat at the time. All his good work could have been undone within a couple of years if he did not have the foresight to do what he did with the empowering of the army. Those threats are still prevalent in and around Turkey and the only way to stop them is with entry into the EU. Then the army can step down from their responsibilities and hand the power back. I see this as being the thinking behind what went on in Eastern Europe. They knew that once in the EU the borders would be fixed so there was a free for all and we all know what happened there. The army is doing a specific job as Attaturk designed and I don’t believe he was wrong. They have acted responsibly through out those years and every time they have had to act, the country has been handed back to democracy as soon as humanly possible. Your need to see a Turkey without the army is prematurely throwing the baby out with the bath
I never said I want to see Turkey without the Army.I said I want the military to have no part in the running of the democratic processes underway...Otherwise they can kiss goodbye to joining EU for another 50 years at least...I agree with you that Turkish secularism will be safest if Turkey is in the EU.The military and its supporters just have to realise that the conditions which existed in Ataturk's time do not exist now.Time to move on,and trust that the constitution which was put in place by Kenan Evren in the coup of the 80s is strong enough to safeguard country's secularism...
The threat today is as great as it was then.
zan wrote:So you are saying that Turkey is without enemies in the political world and there would not be a free for all if Turkey could not protect it self, one way or another. The real threat is coming in political terms. Why was Greece told off for spending too much on defense by the EU. Why is the RoC arming it self to the teeth. Germany, France, Russia......................................................................Political attacks the army can defend from within by keeping dissidents away from total power. The outside powers would love it if Islamists overran Turkey because that would give them the opportunity to start even more trouble from within.
A very simplistic analysis...Come on,Zan,you can do better than that.
I am not suggesting the abolishing of the Turkish army for god's sake...
I am saying the military should stay out of the Presidential election process so that Turkish democracy has a chance to flourish...
People learn to practice democracy by making mistakes.What if they elect Gul as President?He cannot change the Constitution which made him President even if he wanted to.And if people are so unhappy they can vote the AKP out of government in November,and make Gul just a figurehead...That is democracy in action...
The biggest mistake Ataturk made was to try to impose his reforms from the top,by the force of arms
Many are making the very big mistake of interpreting democracy as a system that allows anyone to do whatever he/she wishes as long as they are elected. That is not democracy. Democracy is "responsible" freedom where some law enforcement guarantees that the elected official is not permitted to alter the very democratic princlipals that allowed him to get there in the first place.
Alexis wrote:Many are making the very big mistake of interpreting democracy as a system that allows anyone to do whatever he/she wishes as long as they are elected. That is not democracy. Democracy is "responsible" freedom where some law enforcement guarantees that the elected official is not permitted to alter the very democratic princlipals that allowed him to get there in the first place.
Apologies to stick my head into this conversation midway through, but if what you are saying is the case, who enforces the 'law enforcement' institutions (I am assuming you are talking about the army or police here) who supposedly protect democracy in the way you are describing?
In most western countries it does not work this way around, the protection you are describing is usually no more than a written constitution and the 'law enforcement' institutions really are not the protectors of democracy at all, in fact they are run by the government e.g. in the UK, the army is run by civilians, that is the Ministry of Defense, and the police by the Home Office. The government of the day are the bosses, not the other way around and the idea is that the government is directly accountable to and electable by the people. Of course, as you say we have examples of where this version of democracy has failed, e.g. Hitler. Ironically, what enabled hitler to change the German constitution was his control of militia such as the SA and the point was also that the majority of Germans were ok with his policies at the time, at least initially. Unfortunately that is the price of this kind of western democracy - there is no higher authority than the people, certainly not the army. I am no expert on Kemalism, but it seems to me that the army is far more autonomous in Turkey regarding itself as the protector of democracy (hence all the coups) and is effectively not run by the government in the same way it is in many western countries.
Not saying which method is better but do not make the mistake of believing that Kemalism and Democracy are entirely interchangeable terms. Democracy was around far before Kemalism was and whilst Kemalism is broadly democratic (as I understand it) it does not mean it is a better version of democracy than the versions practiced elsewhere.
Return to Politics and Elections
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests