So, what's happening in Turkey?

[Winner]

I've been hearing about a huge corruption scandal touching the top echelons of Erdogan's party and government, and that Erdogan fights it by sacking police chiefs and blabbering about international conspiracy to smear his party.

I don't really understand what's going on, but it doesn't look like the rule of law and the separation of the party from the state is really respected in Turkey. I hear even the EU has taken noticed and urged Turkey to deal with this in a transparent manner.

Anybody here (tailless?) to elucidate?

 

[Tee Kay]

I'm afraid I haven't been keeping up to date with recent developments, though I remember seeing something on the news today and commenting that it reminds me of Thailand, where there's an anti-government movement that's strong in the big city (Bangkok, Istanbul) but also the ruling party is still very popular in rural areas and will always win elections so the only way to stop its perceived corruption and abuse of power is to take power undemocratically, but a coup is (for once) unlikely due to the military being reluctant to get involved directly.

The difference is that in Turkey it's the prime minister who's rattling off the conspiracy theories.

but it doesn't look like the rule of law and the separation of the party from the state is really respected in Turkey.

Not respected by the AKP, that is. Hence the protests.

Then again, who knows if it's ever been respected. Deep State and all that. But I'm not going into that. Turkish conspiracy theories make my head hurt.

 

[Ajidica]

IIRC, the Turkish Army has a history of intervening when the civilian government is a bit crap, but apparently they won't be doing that this time.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-25525923

History of takeovers

Police are investigating allegations of illicit money transfers to Iran and bribery for construction projects.

The scandal has caused Turkey's lira to fall to a new low against the dollar.

Mr Erdogan gave a speech at Istanbul's main airport to thousands of pro-government supporters on Friday evening.

The Turkish army's statement comes in response to a suggestion in the media by an ally of the prime minister that the corruption scandal might be a plot to trigger a military coup.


"The Turkish Armed Forces (TSK) does not want to be involved in political debates. On the other hand, the TSK will keep on closely following the developments regarding its corporate identity and the legal positions of its members," it said.

Turkey has a history of military takeovers but its power has been curbed during Mr Erdogan's decade in power.

The country's top administrative court has blocked a government decree, introduced last week, ordering police to inform their superiors before launching investigations.

The Council of State's ruling on Friday, blocking the regulation, is seen as the latest setback in Mr Erdogan's efforts to stop the political fallout from the scandal.

 

[Tahuti]

IIRC, the Turkish Army has a history of intervening when the civilian government is a bit crap, but apparently they won't be doing that this time.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-25525923

From a Western perspective, Turkish politics aren't very black-and-white. There are numerous traits about moderate Islamists like Erdogan that Westerners feel ideologically attracted to such strengthening government oversight over the army, pro-business economic policies while Kemalists can boast secularism and overall sense of liberalism (provided it doesn't stand in the way of Turkish nationalism of course).

 

[Tee Kay]

From a Western perspective, Turkish politics aren't very black-and-white. There are numerous traits about moderate Islamists like Erdogan that Westerners feel ideologically attracted to such strengthening government oversight over the army, pro-business economic policies while Kemalists can boast secularism and overall sense of liberalism (provided it doesn't stand in the way of Turkish nationalism of course).

Pick two: secular, democratic, pro-Western

 

[Tahuti]

Pick two: secular, democratic, pro-Western

Neither sides have been consistently democratic. Until recently, the Islamists seemed to be more democratic side, as the Kemalists have a recent history with military coups, which is has alas been reversed. Politically speaking, the Islamists are the ideological successors of the Ottoman royalists, with the Kemalists being the ideological successors of the Young Turks.

 

[Tee Kay]

Neither sides have been consistently democratic. Until recently, the Islamists seemed to be more democratic side, as the Kemalists have a recent history with military coups, which is has alas been reversed.

The Islamists are still the more democratic side given that they are supported by a pluraity of the population; that is, almost half. The Kemalist CHP only got something like 1/4 of the vote last election; another 13% went to the quasi-fascist MHP which ideologically is probably closer to the AKP than the CHP.

Contemporary democracy, in the West or elsewhere, just means you govern with the support of the majority of the population; 50 percent plus one. It doesn't necessarily mean respecting the wishes of the minority. In fact, it usually means the opposite.

Politically speaking, the Islamists are the ideological successors of the Ottoman royalists, with the Kemalists being the ideological successors of the Young Turks.

Well that's their self-image. But Ottoman royalists and Young Turks themselves stood for so many things, often contradictory, over the years. Kemal himself would absolutely loathe to be identified with the Young Turks if he was alive.

 

[Tahuti]

All true. Yet the Turkish political system is more similar to the West to many in the West would readily admit. Secular Socialists versus Religious Capitalists, where did we see that again? On other hand, Turkey's political system also has some very typical Middle-Eastern traits, like the Nationalism vs. Clericalism debates, which has been long concluded in the West with nationalists and clericalists standing on the same side as traditionalists.

 

[Tee Kay]

All true. Yet the Turkish political system is more similar to the West to many in the West would readily admit. Secular Socialists versus Religious Capitalists, where did we see that again?

IIRC the US is much closer to Turkey than any other Western country in religiosity.

On other hand, Turkey's political system also has some very typical Middle-Eastern traits, like the Nationalism vs. Clericalism debates, which has been long concluded in the West with nationalists and clericalists standing on the same side as traditionalists.

That's because nationalism is seen by some (with justification) as anti-Islamic.

 

[Tahuti]

IIRC the US is much closer to Turkey than any other Western country in religiosity.

Actually, the Netherlands and Germany have several explicitly Christian inspired political parties that are considered fairly mainstream, despite being generally irreligious countries.

That's because nationalism is seen by some (with justification) as anti-Islamic.

Actually, it mostly how religion and nationalism interact in Middle Eastern politics. To put into perspective: Western anti-nationalism was originally a conservative force. Nationalism was considered to be a force of democracy, so the church - invested in the Throne-And-Altar - opposed. The French Revolutionaries for instance were very strong culturally assimilationists (i.e anti-multicultural) but were also opposed by and to the Church, which was and still is a highly multinational band of people. Somewhere near the end of the 19th century, did nationalists form alliances with the religious to create a force of traditionalism. However, since Middle Eastern history went differently, this political conflict is still ongoing.

Islam does sort of present an alternative Pan-Nationalism in the form of Pan-Islamism, the political unification of all Islamic countries. However, since there are much stronger political variables than Islam at work, that's not really likely right now.

 

[r16]

as "foretold" the two sides of the Islamist "Conspiracy" have been feeling that they had taken over everything to fall on each other , right on time with the "West" bringing back the undemocratic "Conspiracy" ; with revelations that the Military was intentionally , very willingly and remorselessly framed . The Russian comeback in the 2013 makes a need for Cold War structures which explains the remarkable reverse in whom the Western Media supports in Turkish politics , which alas means the irregularities are noticed only now .

as for certain Cold War stuff , the warm wellcome-back will be wellcomed with MG-3s with full belts .

 

[GoodSarmatian]

Actually, the Netherlands and Germany have several explicitly Christian inspired political parties that are considered fairly mainstream, despite being generally irreligious countries.

Well, in Germany they have 'Christian' in their name but they're mostly just vaguely xenophobic capitalist pigs and religious issues are -with a few exceptions- non-issues (except in Bavaria). There's no big culture war going on.

 

[CavLancer]

Won't miss the guy but he does represent the electorate in their Islamist views. The people want to be governed by bombers, for the first time in an age.

Moderator Action: Calling Islamists "bombers" is racism and will not be tolerated.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Tee Kay]

Islam does sort of present an alternative Pan-Nationalism in the form of Pan-Islamism, the political unification of all Islamic countries. However, since there are much stronger political variables than Islam at work, that's not really likely right now.

Islam is pretty much the strongest political variable there is at the moment.

Comparing the development of nationalism in the West vs the Middle East has its limits. For one, Christianity was never politically united under one state. Islam was. Even after the original Islamic state split, for a long time people still maintained there was theoretically only one Islamic state (kinda like how the PRC and ROC agree there's only one China, but each considers itself to be legitimate)

Won't miss the guy but he does represent the electorate in their Islamist views. The people want to be governed by bombers, for the first time in an age.

No comment

 

[CavLancer]

No reply.

 

[dutchfire]

Contemporary democracy, in the West or elsewhere, just means you govern with the support of the majority of the population; 50 percent plus one. It doesn't necessarily mean respecting the wishes of the minority. In fact, it usually means the opposite.

If this is what Democracy has come to mean, then I'm happy to live in a monarchy.

 

[Cheetah]

Christianity was never politically united under one state. Islam was. Even after the original Islamic state split, for a long time people still maintained there was theoretically only one Islamic state (kinda like how the PRC and ROC agree there's only one China, but each considers itself to be legitimate)

Maybe my brain is working a bit slow at the moment, but for a few centuries Christianity was completely within the political control of the Roman Empire, was it not? Seems that the comparison is quite appropriate to me.

On another note: Does anyone know if the AKP's popularity is because the countryside has the majority of the voters, or because the countryside has the majority of representation? Morally speaking, that would make a difference I think.

 

[W|M]

During the time of the Roman Empire, Christianity became widespread in many areas outside of its control such as Ethiopia and China.

 

[Tahuti]

Well, in Germany they have 'Christian' in their name

Well, that was just my point: Even if you claim such inspiration, it does not preclude you from secularising and ignoring religious issues altogether.

Comparing the development of nationalism in the West vs the Middle East has its limits. For one, Christianity was never politically united under one state. Islam was. Even after the original Islamic state split, for a long time people still maintained there was theoretically only one Islamic state (kinda like how the PRC and ROC agree there's only one China, but each considers itself to be legitimate)

Well, in Christianity it sort of went the other way: Churches became neatly delineated among ethnic groups such as the Dutch Reformed Church, the Armenian Apostolic Church, the Gallican Church (in Bourbon France), the Ethiopian Tawahedo Church, the Church of England and so on. Countries that continue to stay Roman Catholic became rigorously secularised instead, much like certain Islamic countries such as Azerbaijan and Turkey.

During the time of the Roman Empire, Christianity became widespread in many areas outside of its control such as Ethiopia and China.

Except that in most such cases, Christianity branched off such as the Armenian Apostolic Church, the Ethiopian Tawahedo Church etc. The Roman Catholic church seemed to have stayed largely neatly inside the Roman Empire's borders until its demise.

Also, note that Islam spread fairly quickly outside the caliphates as well through merchants to such countries as present-day Kenya and Indonesia.

If this is what Democracy has come to mean, then I'm happy to live in a monarchy.

The USA isn't a democracy, it is a REPUBLIC!!1!

 

[Loppan Torkel]

I have no idea where this will go or how serious it might become. If I was to bet, I'd think that Turkey would steer toward a more religious state, but who knows?

Is there anyone besides Novakart who actually lives in the area and knows a thing or two about the events?