Turkey

So Styx and many others are quite upset that Turkey is supposedly a dictatorship now. What I heard from them on it was that Erdogan can now dissolve the parliament and do more things on his own... so I looked up the referendum and that doesn't seem to be the case. In fact much in the referendum seems reasonable and designed to ensure the continuation of the democratic system.

For example, it increases the number of parliamentary seats, it requires judges to be impartial, it bars people in the military from being elected, it removes the prime minister and just combined that into the presidency (which makes sense to me, that's how it is in the US also), parliament is still "Making, changing, removing laws. Accepting international contracts. Discuss, increase or decrease budget (on Budget Commission) and accept or reject the budget on General Assembly.", abolished military courts, parliament can overcome a presidential veto with an absolute majority, and if a presidential executive order conflicts with a parliamentary law then the parliamentary law is upheld ("The president can issue decrees about executive. If legislation makes a law about the same topic that President issued an executive order, decree will become invalid and parliamentary law become valid").

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_constitutional_referendum,_2017


Is that accurate information? If so, then what's the big deal about the referendum? All that stuff seems larger good to me. I didn't see anything in there about the president being able to dissolve parliament and make his own laws directly. Or is this Wikipedia article about the referendum inaccurate?

Plus if you look at all the 'No' votes in parliament, theyre coming from the left wing, socialist type parties. And many of the EU leaders apparently opposed the referendum too... which makes me think the referendum is actually not that bad.

From NYT, so untrustworthy, "Erdogan claims vast powers". What are these "vast powers"?

"The constitutional change will allow the winner of the 2019 presidential election to assume full control of the government, ending the current parliamentary political system."

^ that is actually very misleading. NYT is making it sound like the president will be in total control over everything. In fact, as noted above, if that Wikipedia article is correct, then the parliament (legislature) still exists and makes laws, and can overcome presidential vetoes; the only real change seems to be that there would be no more prime minister, which is good because why would you want to split up your executive functions anyway like that?


"
■ Abolish the post of prime minister and transfer executive power to the president.

■ Allow the newly empowered president to issue decrees and appoint many judges and officials responsible for scrutinizing his decisions.

■ Limit the president to two five-year terms, but give the option of running for a third term if Parliament truncates the second one by calling for early elections.

■ Allow the president to order disciplinary inquiries into any of Turkey’s 3.5 million civil servants, according to an analysis by the head of the Turkish Bar Association"

The second and fourth are the problematic ones, but I don't remember seeing anything about it in the info on the referendum itself. I've been trying to find a compete text and analysis of the referendum but no luck so far.

Erdogan might be a thug, I don't know...although his calling everyone in Europe a Nazi and telling Turks in Europe to out-breed the native Europeans is certainly a huge problem. Based on that alone I can't support the guy. But otherwise I know very little.

However, again based on what I've seen so far, the referendum doesn't seem to be turning Turkey into a dictatorship at all. Unless my analysis is incorrect?

Yeah, I'm not sure about the man.

I don't like the fact that he ordered the killing of Kurds in Iraq and the Obama administration just remained seated and allowed him to do it. The Kurds are our allies in Iraq.

And this move might have something to do with wanting to kill all Kurds, not only the ones living in Turkey but in countries bordering Turkey as well.

We'll see.

Thats a very interesting perspective. Ive indeed heard not a single positive or non negative thing about this. And yet, I guess it can be seen as an improvement, if Erdogans politics is acceptable.

A few decades ago Turkey was a secular nation. It had been for abut a hundred years. Big friend to the US, hence its role in Nato.
Then Erdogan beat that secular regime (a militaristic, US-type regime made of lawyers and military people) and gradually dissolved the secular state, and imprisoning all the generals and military and juridical staff that had bothered him with their non-religious approach to politics.

At this point Turkey has changed from a secular nation to a religious one, for many people, especially the poor rural tribes in the East, this is probably sometimes an improvement.

Erdogan has spent some 20 years purging the state of secular politicians, military, and lawyers and judges. Many tens of thousands high ranking secular officials have been taken out of the equation. This referendum was definitely a logical next step.

Quote :

There was no question printed on the ballot paper presented to Turkish voters in Sunday’s referendum, merely a bald choice between Yes and No. But the result — a narrow and bitterly contested victory for Recep Tayyip Erdogan — is a turning point in the history of the Turkish state. The new constitution will turn the president into a modern-day sultan with all but unchecked executive power, allowing him ample opportunity to complete his subordination of Turkey’s institutions. Yet he has hardly won the emphatic endorsement he sought. Preliminary results give him a bare majority — he won with 51 per cent of the vote. In Ankara and Istanbul, a majority voted No — even in areas that are usually strongholds of the ruling AK Party. Kurds in the conflict-ridden south-east also rejected the proposals, even though some of those displaced by the violence were unable to vote. Opposition parties are demanding recounts, after an inflammatory decision by the High Election Board to accept ballots without official verification stamps. It is hard to imagine HEB officials, installed by the government, overturning the result. But the vote is tarnished by a manifestly unfair campaign, conducted under emergency rule, with the media suppressed, and the opposition barely given airtime.The tenuous nature of this victory leaves little hope that Mr Erdogan might now adopt a more conciliatory and pragmatic approach, ending his purges of dissidents, relaunching talks with Kurdish rebels and turning to long-neglected economic reforms.Instead, the president is likely to conclude that his divisive tactics and appeals to nationalism have paid off. The expected move to extend the state of emergency, in place since last year’s coup attempt, suggests as much. Since Mr Erdogan must win yet another election, in 2019 if not earlier, to fully assume his new powers, he will see advantage in combat, not conciliation.This sharpens the dilemma facing Turkey’s European partners. The initial reaction from Brussels was cautious, calling on Ankara to seek consensus before moving ahead. But no version of these constitutional arrangements could be held compatible with the criteria for EU accession. Turkey’s bid for membership has long been a thin fiction. It is now a farce. Mr Erdogan may pull the plug himself, by acting on his threat to reinstate the death penalty — a move that would kill the process. If he does not, European leaders may soon be forced to take the initiative. However, they must find a way to reframe the EU’s essential dealings with Turkey on trade, security and migration. And they must not abandon the near half of the population who voted No, despite the pressures and lack of information, and who look to Europe to protect their rights and uphold democratic principles. It may be possible to pursue closer economic ties, by upgrading the EU’s customs union with Turkey — a transactional arrangement that nonetheless requires a measure of political integration. It is essential, given the capture of the Turkish judicial system, for European institutions to persist in their efforts to hold Ankara to account for abuses of human rights. Yet this is a poor substitute for the hopes Turks once held of full and equal partnership within Europe. Turkey’s path to the west has always been difficult, but hope survived decades of setbacks. Now it has been extinguished. This is a tragedy for the country. Mr Erdogan offers discord, not reform or development. It is a blow to democracy for Muslim majority countries. And it is one more step in the global march towards plebiscitary despotism. - FT

But if democracy votes people like Obama and Erdogan in power - not to mention some other names - fuck democracy, right?

In nations like these, democracy only serves so that people can vote rights away that their ancestors fought for. Thats all it is, really, so if thats what they choose, totally fine. Turkey is weakened as a state and that too is good.

Fixed Cross wrote:

In nations like these, democracy only serves so that people can vote rights away that their ancestors fought for. Thats all it is, really, so if thats what they choose, totally fine. Turkey is weakened as a state and that too is good.

Yeah, the argument has been posed to me before that democracy is nothing less than the voter turning over their constitutional rights to the politicians.

I must agree that there is some truth in that.

But I still fail to find a functioning government of a large society that has a system better than democracy, especially if the democratic process actually worked.

I have yet to see my imagined benevolent dictator.

Yes, and even here it seems democracy has actually done something quite cool.

Erdieberdie has won, but by a very thin margin, and what's very bad for him is he has lost in his own district, where he votes. Plus, he lost in Ankara, Izmir and Istanbul. So he basically won over the rural Turks, but no one else. These are the poor and uneducated, whereas all the more potentiating demographics now consider him an enemy, and are growing courage. Once against it seems Erdieberdie may have indeed overplayed his hand. Reports say he looked 'ashen' when the results of the cities came in.

So now he rules like a 16th century feudal lord over a 21th century country, where all the modern population is against him. Pretty amusing. No doubt this has weakened him as well, perhaps more than it strengthened him.

Sounds like he doesn't have much support from the educated people of the country.

We can always hope for the best for the poor people.