Turkey's Presidential Takeover?

[Sheilbh]

The only country that had a revolution and then didn't have a military coup/civil war is doing fine.

I agree Tunisia is doing rather well, but still kinda walking on delicate ground I think.

Yeah. Especially with the reported thousands of Tunisians who've gone to Syria.

[KRonn]

Are you really saying that the Muslim Brotherhood would be a good thing for a more democratic Egypt? Aren't they considered a terrorist org, or at the least another brand of Islamic extremists? Why would they be a good thing for a democratic government?

[Sheilbh]

Are you really saying that the Muslim Brotherhood would be a good thing for a more democratic Egypt?

Yes.

Aren't they considered a terrorist org, or at the least another brand of Islamic extremists?

No and no. There are branches of the MB that are extremist - Syria for example. The Egyptian one is, for Arab Islamism, pretty middle of the road. Not as liberal as their Maghrebi counterparts, not as extreme as the rest.

The Egyptian MB may be moving towards a more extreme position now, that's certainly the position of the Sisi government. But it's difficult to actually judge.

Why would they be a good thing for a democratic government?

They were democratically elected. There was no indication they were going to cancel the next election and every indication they'd probably lose it. Don't interrupt your enemy when they're making a mistake.

Why wouldn't they be? What were your concerns?1111111

[KRonn]

Being democratically elected doesn't mean much if those elected aren't going to adhere to the same institutions. If I remember right, wasn't the MB going to start making some big changes to the Constitution and courts, or other changes and that's what spurred the military to move in?
I don't see what the thrill is with the MB but I guess I can see the attraction as they're a large and influential Islamic organization, and perhaps the Egyptian branch is a more "moderate" one, though moderate may be a relative term with some of these groups. But IMO I don't think any nation being ruled by an org like this a good way to go, as I'd see them moving in the same type direction as Erdogan in Turkey, or I'd think they'll likely become another nation governed like Iran, only this time with Sunni rulers. That's why I'm very suspicious of them.

[Razgovory]

I remember certain people here on Languish cheering on Erdogan doing away with the "undemocratic" military in favour of his "democratic" rule. 

Raz is the supreme arbiter of truth and justice for things thousands of miles away he knows nothing about.  Shockingly things that occur in his own backyard seem more gray to him.

Yeah, how silly of me  to be unsupportive of military dictatorship.

[Agelastus]

Yeah, because the Egyptian military's doing a great job

Nobody has done a great job ruling Egypt since the 11th century....BC.

Being the often insanely literal person that I am, I would interject here that Cambyses and Darius apparently didn't do too bad a job. So I'd amend your phrase to "since the sixth Century....BC".

[Valmy]

If I wanted to be entirely fair I would be looking over various Ottoman Pashas and their policies

[Zanza]

I'm more interested in why the U.S. is the exception to the rule.

George Washington.  Though even with us the Executive tends to accumulate lots of power.  Fortunately for us our political traditions make a dude declaring himself 'President for Life' or whatever highly unlikely anytime soon.

What if Roosevelt had lived longer. Would he have had a chance to get reelected again?

[Zanza]

I remember certain people here on Languish cheering on Erdogan doing away with the "undemocratic" military in favour of his "democratic" rule. 

I was one of them. I think the autocratic tendencies of Erdogan and the AKP weren't really visible in the first years of their rule and only became more and more apparent in the last three to five years.

[Valmy]

I'm more interested in why the U.S. is the exception to the rule.

George Washington.  Though even with us the Executive tends to accumulate lots of power.  Fortunately for us our political traditions make a dude declaring himself 'President for Life' or whatever highly unlikely anytime soon.

What if Roosevelt had lived longer. Would he have had a chance to get reelected again?

Well polls in 1940 indicated that if it were not for the war he would have lost.  Once the US entered the war his popularity sky-rocketed as evidenced by the real and widespread grief when he died.  It sure seems like an attempt to win a fifth term would have led to the kind of opposition his court packing scheme generated but it is hard to say. 

[Sheilbh]

Being democratically elected doesn't mean much if those elected aren't going to adhere to the same institutions. If I remember right, wasn't the MB going to start making some big changes to the Constitution and courts, or other changes and that's what spurred the military to move in?

They were writing a new constitution, understandably given that the Nasserist one may not be the best model. Not a single one of those changes or 'Islamifications' of the constitution supported by the MB has not since been adopted by Sisi. In fact in terms of the place of religion in the state Sisi has increased it from the 'MB' constitution.

The institutions that elected them were the exact same as were used under Mubarak. Are they really fit for purpose?

As I say there was no sign that I saw that the MB were going to try and delay or end the electoral process. Whether they'd have handed over power peacefully to whoever won the next election we don't know.

I don't see what the thrill is with the MB but I guess I can see the attraction as they're a large and influential Islamic organization, and perhaps the Egyptian branch is a more "moderate" one, though moderate may be a relative term with some of these groups. But IMO I don't think any nation being ruled by an org like this a good way to go, as I'd see them moving in the same type direction as Erdogan in Turkey, or I'd think they'll likely become another nation governed like Iran, only this time with Sunni rulers. That's why I'm very suspicious of them.

An Egypt that looked like Turkey would be a miracle and a hugely positive boost for the entire region even if it were run by someone like Erdogan or Morsi.

Ultimately I think there are two issues. The first is one I think we'll see all over the world which is that the Western experience of liberal democracy is going to be challenged. I don't mean by Putinism or that sort of thing but simply that we'll get non-liberal democracies. It so happened in the West that generally speaking democracy developed slowly along and after the development of liberalism. I think across the world people in dictatorships and authoritarian regimes won't be willing to wait for an elite that behaves in such a way that liberalism develops before they want democracy. The process will be short-circuited and we'll go straight to democracy with liberalism developing, if at all, in its wake. That doesn't necessarily bother me - I think it's happened in South Africa and Latin America and I think it'll keep happening in Asia and Africa too.

Second is the specific. The Arab world is soaked in Islamic and Islamist discourse. Any election anywhere will produce at least a moderately Islamist result - the new Tunisian constitution is the first in Arab history that doesn't have an official role for religion in the state. My view is that of an unchanging neo-con. I have no time for the neo-Orientalists of the right or the left who think the Arab world isn't ready for democracy, I think a lot of the problems stem from the lack of democracy and we should support it. That means we'll deal with governments we disagree with entirely, but we already do that. I think the approach of John McCain who worked very closely with the Muslim Brotherhood is better than Tony Blair who's trying to provide a fig leaf of decency to the Sisi regime.

I was one of them. I think the autocratic tendencies of Erdogan and the AKP weren't really visible in the first years of their rule and only became more and more apparent in the last three to five years.

Agreed. I think you could see it around 2009 - that's when I remember noticing the way the tax office apparently threatened audits of non-sympathetic media companies for example.

And I still think subordinating the military to civilian rule is a good thing.

[alfred russel]

The reason Svolik points to presidential systems as being prone to takeover is because presidential systems can be dangerous. The United States is a remarkable exception to this rule, but new democracies largely try to avoid them these days because of their instability. The only presidential democracy with an extended history of constitutional continuity is the U.S., and parliamentary democracies generally last more than three times as long as presidential democracies. A presidential system promotes a strong figure at the top of the food chain with an independent power base, which can be dangerous in divided societies or states without countervailing strong legislative and judicial institutions.

I don't think Turkey can be considered  a breakdown of a presidential system, because it was/is a parliamentary system. The presidential role is largely a ceremonial one with reserve powers - this is common in republics. I know it is a bit more, but constitutionally it is more like the Queen's role in the UK rather than the President of the US.

The breakdown, if there is one, in Turkey is that Erdogan was term limited out of his role of Prime Minister, but dominates the party that in turn dominates during elections. The source of his governmental power is that the parliament of Turkey basically has been deferring to his judgment.

[Valmy]

And I still think subordinating the military to civilian rule is a good thing.

And I still think ruling monarchs should be toppled off their thrones, by force it necessary.  But I would be a little hesitant to cheer on that Palestinian nationalist coup in Jordan.  That is kind of how I felt about the Turkey thing...wait and see.  Things obviously went far worse than I ever imagined. 

[Sheilbh]

There weren't any legal term-limits on Erdogan. He said he'd only be PM for three terms, but there's very rarely term limits on PMs.

I think he wanted the aggrandisement of being President. Just like Mugabe changing Zimbabwe from a Parliamentary to a Presidential system - and numerous other examples in Africa which almost always end up in some form of authoritarian regime. So he's constitutionally and politically changed the system (his model, from what he says is the V Republic in France) to a Presidential one.

[Sheilbh]

Things obviously went far worse than I ever imagined.

Really? We're talking the Mid-East. I think you lack imagination