Human Rights Watch Warns of 'Authoritarian Drift' in Turkey

[Sheilbh]

What do you do when democracy is antithetical to human rights?  A key problem in the Middle East, particularly over the past five years or so, is that "democracy" usually means "tyranny of the majority" or "tyranny of the vociferous".

Isn't choosing your governors a human right?

My view has always been that democracy and free speech are the most important bits. Without them human rights are paper tigers.

[garbon]

Isn't choosing your governors a human right?

I'd think no?

[Tamas]

I can see how the laicist military could be considered the onetime hope for human rights in Turkey. But was it ever really a hope for democracy? It regularly toppled governments after all.

What do you do when democracy is antithetical to human rights?  A key problem in the Middle East, particularly over the past five years or so, is that "democracy" usually means "tyranny of the majority" or "tyranny of the vociferous".

That is definitely an issue. Liberal democracy in its modern form as practiced in the west is the result of centuries worth of process of a kind or societal development so far unique in the world. This kind of system requires a big level of self restraint from the leaders and in fact from the people and a general consensus on the supremacy of the basic ideas behind it. Even Eastern Europe is having serious trouble in trying to adopt the system without having this full background behind it. And most of the Middle East is missing that background altogether

[Sheilbh]

I'd think no?

Okay. I'd say it, with free speech, is the foundational human right. Without it you've no consent in government and no debate.

[The Brain]

I can see how the laicist military could be considered the onetime hope for human rights in Turkey. But was it ever really a hope for democracy? It regularly toppled governments after all.

What do you do when democracy is antithetical to human rights?  A key problem in the Middle East, particularly over the past five years or so, is that "democracy" usually means "tyranny of the majority" or "tyranny of the vociferous".

Parking lot. Verb.

[Tamas]

What do you do when democracy is antithetical to human rights?  A key problem in the Middle East, particularly over the past five years or so, is that "democracy" usually means "tyranny of the majority" or "tyranny of the vociferous".

Isn't choosing your governors a human right?

My view has always been that democracy and free speech are the most important bits. Without them human rights are paper tigers.

They are necessary, but on their own they do not guarantee human rights by default

[Sheilbh]

That is definitely an issue. Liberal democracy in its modern form as practiced in the west is the result of centuries worth of process of a kind or societal development so far unique in the world. This kind of system requires a big level of self restraint from the leaders and in fact from the people and a general consensus on the supremacy of the basic ideas behind it. Even Eastern Europe is having serious trouble in trying to adopt the system without having this full background behind it. And most of the Middle East is missing that background altogether

Maybe, but it's tough to see how you develop a democratic culture without, say, free speech. How can you develop that culture without, above all, free speech and argument?

But then I'm an unreconstructed neo-con

[Sheilbh]

They are necessary, but on their own they do not guarantee human rights by default

Nothing guarantees human rights by default.

But I think the best approach is one that allows criticism and debate. I think this is partly why, generally, emerging democracies are seen as best served by a Parliamentary system. It is about two opposing sides fighting it out - a play, or a dialogue if a contentious one. A Presidential system automatically instils deference and is, more often, a monologue.

[Tamas]

They are necessary, but on their own they do not guarantee human rights by default

Nothing guarantees human rights by default.

But I think the best approach is one that allows criticism and debate. I think this is partly why, generally, emerging democracies are seen as best served by a Parliamentary system. It is about two opposing sides fighting it out - a play, or a dialogue if a contentious one. A Presidential system automatically instils deference and is, more often, a monologue.

Yes but it is pretty easy for a parliamentary system to turn into devolving spiral. That is exactly what happened in Hungary: the two sides ended up removing all kinds of reasonable debate and installing fierce tribal warfare until one side achieved total victory.

[Sheilbh]

Yes but it is pretty easy for a parliamentary system to turn into devolving spiral. That is exactly what happened in Hungary: the two sides ended up removing all kinds of reasonable debate and installing fierce tribal warfare until one side achieved total victory.

Yeah, they can fail like anything else. There are no guarantees for democracy or human rights apart, ultimately, from the people. But on the route to outright authoritarianism they may well end up adopting a Presidential system as Erdogan has.

[Razgovory]

I don't think anyone here is surprised by this. It's been a rather obvious progression.

What about Raz?

Your problem was theocracy, not authoritarianism.  I believe his main opposition is a Muslim cleric, would you like him to take power?

[Tamas]

Yes but it is pretty easy for a parliamentary system to turn into devolving spiral. That is exactly what happened in Hungary: the two sides ended up removing all kinds of reasonable debate and installing fierce tribal warfare until one side achieved total victory.

Yeah, they can fail like anything else. There are no guarantees for democracy or human rights apart, ultimately, from the people. But on the route to outright authoritarianism they may well end up adopting a Presidential system as Erdogan has.

Oh yes, Erdogan's presidency is merely a step in his journey to ultimate power

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

Isn't choosing your governors a human right?

No.

My view has always been that democracy and free speech are the most important bits. Without them human rights are paper tigers.

My view is that democracy is a means to protecting and enforcing human rights.  A very important means.  However, there are cases where a particular implementation or a particular administration can act to infringe on the human rights of others.  In severe cases, the right answer is to remove that government and replace it with one that will respect the human rights of all.  That government may not be democratic.

Democracy is not a panacea for human rights.

[crazy canuck]

There are no guarantees for democracy or human rights apart, ultimately, from the people.

I disagree.  The Rule of Law provides the most important "guarantee".  The "people" can be fickle at best at protecting the rights of the minority.

[Sheilbh]

There are no guarantees for democracy or human rights apart, ultimately, from the people.

I disagree.  The Rule of Law provides the most important "guarantee".  The "people" can be fickle at best at protecting the rights of the minority.

South Africa? Singapore? The US for chunks of its history? The model to which China's aspiring?

There is no guarantee. You can punctiliously adhere to the rule of law while entirely denying the rights of whole rafts of citizens. But if I had to choose a second best to the right to challenge, to debate and to argue your point, then it'd be rule of law.