While we're thrashing the issue of smacking over here, over in Turkey they're having a serious political crisis. Parliament is due to elect a new President, and the ruling Justice and Development party (AKP) - a moderate Islamic party along the lines of European Christian Democrat parties - has naturally been trying to put up their own candidate. This has been fiercely opposed by the opposition, who view an AKP President as antiethical to Turkish secularism. So they boycotted the vote, denying a quorum, thus making the election invalid.
So far this has been handled by Turkey's constitutional court, as it should be (though I'd have thought something so basic as whether a quorum was present would not require a judicial ruling). And the AKP has responded by calling early elections in an effort to gain a stronger mandate - again, perfectly reasonable and democratic politics. There are however two serious concerns. The first is that the AKP is linking its call for early elections to a constitutional change to allow the President to be directly elected. No matter how desirable you think such a model is (and it really depends on the powers and role of the President and the overall constitutional framework), this is the sort of change which requires long-term discussion - not something that should be rammed through five minutes before an election. Second of course is the army. The Turkish military regards itself as the guardian of secularism, and has stepped in four times in the past 50 years to "defend the republic" from governments it didn't like. They've always been dubious about the AKP, and are now saying that the AKP's choice for President would be unacceptable - essentially threatening a coup. This would be a major step backwards for Turkish democracy, and a death knell for their prospects of entering the EU. Unfortunately, the Turkish military may not care about either.
Actually I think this illustrates why Turkey is in no way ready to join the EU and won't be until their military and political classes change their whole attitude.
ReplyDeleteThis has nothing to do with islamophobia - it's simply that the EU is an organisation of liberal democratic states and allowing a country that isn't to join will dilute this.
Rich: I wouldn't go quite that far - remember, both Spain and Portugal also had histories of military intervention - but it certainly shows they have a long way to go.
ReplyDeleteI support the AKP in this case, and the opposition and army are acting undemocratically. A military coup could be justified if the AKP started acting like the taleban but the AKP is a long way from this.
ReplyDeleteRich- the EU refusal is maily Islamaphobia, though other issues alos play a role. While turkey isn't reay (in my opinon) to join the EU yet, i think it should be allowed to join in the forseeable future. Hopefully once the AKP is reelected (or voted out) and the military has been reformed.
Spain and Portugal sorted out the problem though.
ReplyDeleteIn Spain, the coup failed and the instigator, Tejero, served 15 years in jail.
In Portugal the coup was *against* a military dictatorship and paved the way for democracy.
Rich: I was thinking more before that - Portugal was a dictatorship until 1974, Spain until 1976. They got over it quite successfully and now have strong democratic cultures. With luck Turkey can do the same.
ReplyDeleteExactly, they changed their attitude. In Portugal a new generation of younger army officers were fed up with maintaining the colonial dictatorship and rebelled. In Spain, Juan Carlos led the country back to constitutional government.
ReplyDeleteThis hasn't happened in Turkey. The army doesn't see itself as servants of the state and many in the Turkish political system don't accept that either the extent of Turkey or its political arrangements are a matter for democratic decision. (For instance, they regard calling for an independent Kurdish state as criminal).
Rich: This hasn't happened in Turkey.
ReplyDeleteNo - but it might, eventually. And I'm hoping the EU will do everythign it can to try and push things in that direction. They've got an awfully big carrot to wave, after all...
Rich, the army in Turkey sees itself as servants of the nation and constitution. While that has some terrible effects (ask the Kurds), I don't see how attempting to enforce Turkey's secular nature on a party that is an offshoot of a party that was banned for its advocacy of the Islamisation of Turkey can be considered a bad thing.
ReplyDeleteIf former followers of Brian Tamaki gained power in New Zealand with an agenda of Christianisng the nation I would not be at all unhappy with intereference in the democratic process to prevent a creeping theocracy.
roger,
ReplyDeleteThe AKP hasn't been a radical islamic party. They've held total control of parliament in Turkey for several years, and there's been no collapse of or attack on the secular state.
The fuss is that the leader of this incredibly popular government is now planning to run for president.
Real democracies cope with religious parties. Electing a Christian Democrat doesn't undermine Germany's secular state.
As for your desire to undermine democracy if Brian Tamaki was likely to win: so who would you appoint then? By what process? And since the majority oppose you, how you gonna handle that? Outlaw their newspapers? Get the police to break some heads? Make a few of their leaders disappear and see if that puts them off?
"the army in Turkey sees itself as servants of the nation and constitution"
ReplyDeleteThat's the problem. In a liberal democracy (like every country in the EU) the army are public servants. They take their orders from the elected government. Arbitrary usurping of power by military force is not a reasonable form of "check and balance".
If Turkey wants to join the EU it will need to downsize its army, remove conscription and take measures to ensure the general staff accept that they work for the government and do what the government tells them.
The Economist (a free-market political magazine) covers this issue as their lead article this week:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9116747
Their summary:
"If Turks have to choose, democracy is more important than secularism"
They praise Erdogan's government ("Turkey's most successful in forty years") and say that even if it was terrible the army still shouldn't intervene:
"However desirable it may be to preserve Ataturk's secular legacy, that cannot come at the expense of overriding the normal process of democracy—even if that process produces bad, ineffective, corrupt or mildly Islamist governments. Algeria, where 150,000 people died in a civil war after an election which Islamists won was annulled in 1992, holds a sharp lesson about what can happen when soldiers suppress popular will. Of course, Turkey is not Algeria; but armies everywhere should beware of subverting elections. It is up to voters, not soldiers, to punish governments—and they will now have the opportunity to do so in Turkey. "