Switzerland has a direct democracy where, if the population were to vote for it, they would pass all kinds of crazy policies. This is in contrast to the UK where people now believe the referandum means the government has to embark on an EU-exit process. They don't, because the UK is not a direct democracy. If Front Nationale ruled France and pushed discriminatory policies, would we call Le Penne a dictator as well?
Speaking of Ataturk, back when he introduced the reforms, some of it was unsupported by parts of the electorate, just as some of Edogan's policies are. Democracy means what the majority votes for wins, unless there's some rigging like in US, Russia, or probably Turkey as well. I mean, if votes can be rigged in the US and any and all objection is silenced by friends in the Supreme Court, then what do you expect from Russia or Turkey, really?
Isn't the current situation in Turkey just another case of shock doctrine, as unfortunately happens annually all over the globe?
Putin is someone who has the support of the vast majority of his constituents, even despite the hardships and corruption, while Erdogan is just another opportunistic authoritarian who abused a faulty system to become a "democratically elected" dictator. In the eyes of much of the rest of the world, he has no legitimacy and is a pariah whose only leverage is the migrant crisis and the conflict with ISIS.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_presidential_electio...
Is there a credible opposition party to AKP, or a smattering of smaller parties?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_T...
Sorry, when you start talking about tens of thousands imprisoned without due process, that's way beyond approving undemocratic legislation in opportunistic ways.
> If Front Nationale ruled France and pushed discriminatory policies, would we call Le Penne a dictator as well?
A dictator can be voted in and still be a dictator (see also the one-Godwin-stops-me-from-mentioning). In fact, the original Roman dictators were elected, and followed Roman laws. Modern dictators usually reach power with a golpe, but that's very recent; both Mussolini and Hitler were regularly elected and nominated heads of government by following their proper constitutional laws - the King of Italy was not deposed, nor was the German President (he died of natural causes and left the office technically vacant).
Dictatorship is defined by how power is exercised once attained, not by how it is reached. Removing regularly-appointed judges on political grounds, that's dictatorial; taking political prisoners without following due process, that's dictatorial; and so on and so forth.
> Speaking of Ataturk,
I agree that we (especially outside of Turkey) now carry a rose-tinted view of Ataturk, conveniently forgetting his ugly side: he all but deported and killed swaths of population in order to "solidify" the ethnic background of his state, especially in remote areas and on the islands bordering Greece; and was, after all, a dictator who might have wished for democracy but didn't practice it very much. He was very much a man of his time, from a generation that produced Mussolini, Hitler, Franco, Stalin and so on.
> would we call Le Penne a dictator as well?
What would you call Chavez or Maduro? If not dictators (after all, "There is already too much democracy in Venezuela" according to their supporters), certainly they are the leaders of an authoritarian kleptocracy.
> Democracy means what the majority votes win.
No. Voting is just the end stage of a much longer process, backed by the credibility of the Institutions to which the people put faith in.
> Isn't the current situation in Turkey just another case of shock doctrine?
No. This is you trying to fit your worldview into the events.
Yeah, and the special thing about Turkey is (was?) that the military is one of the balancing forces because they were not controlled by the government as they are in many alternative democracies. This is partly historical due to past military coups. It's hard for me to say whether it's good or bad, given that the military independence has led to very negative outcomes like the 1980 coup, but it can also provide a force to keep a crazy parliament in check.
> What would you call Chavez or Maduro?
Can't comment because I don't know enough, sorry. Will look into them.
> This is you trying to fit your worldview into the events.
Maybe you're right, all I'm saying is that it looks like they are in the process of passing controversial policies while the electorate is under shock.
Democracy says nothing about check and balance, or respect for minorities.
But I think we are just using different names for the same beast. "Liberal Democracies" are "Democracies as we'd like to understand them in the western world".
What vote rigging are you talking about?
Edit: Is rigging the wrong term?
In the 2000 election, the close result in Florida triggered an automatic machine recount under Florida law. The machine recount still had Bush leading. So Gore sought hand recounts in only four heavily-Democratic counties. The Florida Supreme Court then ordered statewide hand recounting only of "undervotes" (ballots where the machine failed to detect any vote for any candidate). But the recount process itself was a total disaster: http://www.factcheck.org/2008/01/the-florida-recount-of-2000. The various counties doing the recounts were applying totally different standards to counting the votes.
In a 7-2 decision,[1] the Supreme Court held that the Florida recount violated the Constitution's "Equal Protection Clause," which requires the law to be applied equally to all people. It found that recounting only some ballots and recounting them using different standards in different places resulted in unequal application of the law based on where people voted.
In my opinion,[2] the Supreme Court got it right. The right thing to do would have been to stop after the machine recount. There is no way a hand recount was going to be a more fair and trustworthy process than the machine recount. The machine might not properly count what everyone intended to vote (e.g. because they didn't punch out the chad on the voting card all the way), but machine error is going to be random. Hand counting, on the other hand, will be biased toward favored candidates. Moreover, a subsequent $1 million study commissioned by news organizations found that Bush still would've won under most recount scenarios.
[1] The oft-reported "5-4" decision in Bush v. Gore was not about whether the recount was valid. 7 of 9 Justices agreed it was not. It was about whether Florida still had time to do a proper state-wide recount within the statutory deadline.
[2] I was too young to vote in 2000, but at the time I supported Gore. I too was infuriated about the 2000 election until I actually studied Bush v. Gore in law school.
Erdogan succeeds in part because he attacks democracy. The whole reason Erdogan (with ISIS's help) attacks the Kurds is because "they" deprived Erdogan's party of a parliamentary majority for the first time since 2002. [1] [2] So his military attacks his own cities. [3]
(The Erdogan/ISIS connection is obvious. [4])
Erdogan's been threatening academics for a long time. For example, detaining them for a petition for peace, hacking/blocking it so people can't read it. [5]
Erdogan destroying his opposition isn't democratic.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/18/turkey...
[2] http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/7/29/turkey-launc...
[3] http://www.france24.com/en/20160714-turkey-unesco-heritage-s...
[4] http://time.com/3980085/these-5-stats-explain-turkeys-war-on...
[5] https://news.vice.com/article/turkey-detains-21-academics-fo...
Erdogan attacked Kurds long before he lost his parliamentary majority. He attacks them because it's politically convenient for him to have a unifying enemy (most non-AKP Turks do believe the Kurds should renounce violence and drop their separatist demands). In fact, the HDP reached such a high level of support in those elections because a lot of people finally saw through the game and were tired of playing it.
I don't disagree that Erdogan all but helped IS/Daesh against Assad and Kurds, I'm just saying that his attitude towards the Kurdish problem has been more or less the same since the '90s.
The opposition may not have much power right now but they'd have none at all if the military took over so it's all about theit survival instinct.
My point was, if Erdogan is such a threat to democracy, how come his political opponents -- such as the pro-Kurdish HDP and leftist parties -- didn't support this military coup, which was allegedly in favor of liberty and secularism and everything good that Erdogan seems to be against? Maybe these opposition parties were aware that military coups are seldom democratic, are often followed by arbitrary imprisonment and summary executions, and maybe it wasn't obvious that this rebel army faction was a better and more democratic alternative to Erdogan?
If they support the coup, this undermines their legitimacy, and in the likely case that Erdogan wins, they will immediately be purged, along with the coup planners. Of course, that can happen regardless.
There's an old Soviet joke about this - three men are in a cell, and try to figure out why they are there. It turns out that one criticized a minister, another praised that same minister, and the third is that minister.
Yes, but that's un-american and therefore, evil.
Preferably after a bloody purge. It has a distinguished history of organizing death squads, torture, murder of political opponents, and probably a few false flag operations, not to mention a cozy relationship with business interests. This, obviously, doesn't make Erdogan into a nice guy, but the rosy picture many people outside of Turkey seem to have of these good old secular generals risking it all to uphold their moral values isn't, IMHO, supported by facts.
> a benevolant dictator
I think the Kurds in particular will take issue with such a description.
Is there any indication that the coup of to try to restore secularism, and not instigated by Gulen and his followers? I ask this sincerely because a couple of my very educated Turkish friends in the west do think Gulen was behind the coup attempt in some form or the other.
My personal view is that Gulen was involved with the coup, but possibly jocobin nationalist/kemalist fractions in the army was also in the mix.
I'm not saying that they weren't legitimate. I have no information one way or the other. But if the regime wished to exploit the failed coup for political reasons, faked statements are one standard way to do that.
A stadium full of Gulen supporters cheering for Erdogan, just 4 years ago.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bP7r0U8mfg
Erdogan's speech; "I wish Gulen was here with us today"
Excellent, super analysis of recent Turkish history. I am speechless.
By any metric, Tayyip's leadership is not secular.
However, the turkish people (at least according to my friends) are are badly shaken after the two recent terrorist attacks - the coup represents more violence - regardless of its 'benevolance'.
Turkey's admiration of Atatürk, the 'founding father' of modern Turkey is absolute: a benevolant dictator, he molded Turkey into a modern balanced country, uniting multiple social, ethnical and religous systems.
It is widely held that Tayyip is doing exactly the opposite: peice by peice dismantling the social balance and fundamentals of Turkey. Naturally, his actions are liked by some - but his goal is to divide, as opposed to unite.
Based upon this, the coup seems to be yet another tangile proof of the disquiet that has been installed under the Tayyip regieme.
Essentially, the turkish people have had enough of bloodshed, division and disharmony.