Turkey's Presidential Takeover?

[Sheilbh]

You are being intentionally obtuse here. There was no evidence Putin ever planned to cancel elections, and he hasn't, but he certainly made it so no one could meaningfully campaign against him by creating an unfree society. Elections, even genuinely free ones, do not mean a democratic country if the party in power controls information and the system such that they have no chance of losing. That's precisely what the MB was moving toward in Egypt. I would generally agree that the MB is a moderate Islamic party in the context of the Middle East, but in Egypt they were not wanting to share power with anyone else.

Sure. But I think we are in danger of overestimating how unfree unfree democracies can be - see the recent election in Sri Lanka for example which surprised everyone.

And I agree with what you're saying but the impression I got was that not only were the MB not about to cancel elections but they were very likely to lose them. They were incompetent, they'd fallen out with their allies and they were riven with internal splits. They were failing on every front. If you look at Putin or Erdogan part of the reason they've been able to build systems like they have is because of their competence.

In terms of extremism it is also worth remembering that the MB were out-organised by the Salafist Nour Party who support the current military regime. It's a strange saving us from extremism that implements a stronger place for Islam in the constitution and allies with far more extreme parties.

I haven't seen such school boy idealism in many a year, certainly not in a place as often cynical as this forum. History is a clear guide that many peoples are in fact not ready for democracy. Anywhere in which the elite are more liberal than the populace, and the populace is mostly barbarians, there is little moral argument for democracy. That's a classic scenario where the masses must be controlled/cowed, with as much violence is as necessary to make it so.

We disagree. This forum isn't that cynical. Everyone was a neo-con when it involved invasions, I'm just a full-time neo-con

If someone tells you they see something, and you refuse to acknowledge that, then later, when you yourself start to see it, you can't come back and say that something was "not really visible" at the time. It just means you couldn't see it.

But none of you were saying he's a bit authoritarian and this could end up in a post-modern, cronyist democracy a la Russia. You were worrying about his Islamism  leading to a far more Islamic state. It's a different result than all the stress of the early 2000s. As has been repeatedly pointed out his major opposition right now is an Islamic group.

There's now more of an Erastian threat to Islam in Turkey than an Islamist threat from Erdogan.

[Sheilbh]

Also on Egypt, the US should be concerned by the heroes welcome Sisi is throwing for Putin right now. But at least he's clean-shaven.

[Admiral Yi]

Should only the US be concerned?

[DGuller]

Also on Egypt, the US should be concerned by the heroes welcome Sisi is throwing for Putin right now. But at least he's clean-shaven.

To be fair, by far the easiest path to Putin's heart is slaughtering a bunch of your own people.  He's not just okay with it, he's actively for it.  Sisi would be foolish to throw that kind of support away when he still has so much slaughtering to do.

[DGuller]

Martinus do you think of military coups as "democratic" process?

Obviously they're not, but sometimes they're the least worst outcome.  Occasionally coups prevent countries from going off the deep end even more and entrenching anti-democratic institutions even more deeply.  At least juntas tend to be temporary, whereas authoritarian governments with a pretense of popular legitimacy can keep on ruining countries for decades.

[Sheilbh]

Should only the US be concerned?

If you want we can all be concerned, but it's a bit like being concerned by the tides. They're the US' client/close strategic partner.

If it was a Gulf Kingdom or Jordan then the UK should be concerned, if it was Lebanon the French should be.

[Razgovory]

Martinus do you think of military coups as "democratic" process?

Obviously they're not, but sometimes they're the least worst outcome.  Occasionally coups prevent countries from going off the deep end even more and entrenching anti-democratic institutions even more deeply.  At least juntas tend to be temporary, whereas authoritarian governments with a pretense of popular legitimacy can keep on ruining countries for decades.

This has been mantra of dictatorships through out the 20th century.  We had to overthrow the democratic government, they were going to install a dictatorship!  This "We have to destroy the village to save it", thinking was bullshit in the cold war and it's bullshit now.  Perhaps they can be "occasionally helpful", but that doesn't seem to be the case here.  And despite all the hyperventilating about Turkey, It has yet to become a theocracy, state sanctioned mullahs are not sending terrorists into the west and the government is not stoning people in the streets.  If Erdogan was secular military man and had the same policies of restricting the media, nobody would bat an eye.  Hell, he'd probably be praised for his light touch.  You say the word "Muslim" and everyone just loses their mind.  Despotism and mass murder become acceptable tools.

[The Brain]

They are hardly "acceptable".

[DGuller]

This has been mantra of dictatorships through out the 20th century.

Well, duh, excuses work better if they're at least plausible.  Just because some reason is abused by bullshitters doesn't mean that it can't be true sometimes.

We had to overthrow the democratic government, they were going to install a dictatorship!

Just because a government has been elected at some point doesn't mean that it's a democratic government.  Democracy is much more about institutions than it is about elections.  An elected government that dismantles democratic institutions is not a democratic government.  If Russian military overthrows Putin tomorrow, would it be an unqualified bad in your view?

[The Brain]

  An elected government that dismantles democratic institutions is not a democratic government. 

wut

[Tonitrus]

If Russian military overthrows Putin tomorrow, would it be an unqualified bad in your view?

Being that I doubt the Russian military would restore(?) democratic institutions, yes.

The Russian military brass is probably kookier than an ex-KGB man. 

[Razgovory]

This has been mantra of dictatorships through out the 20th century.

Well, duh, excuses work better if they're at least plausible.  Just because some reason is abused by bullshitters doesn't mean that it can't be true sometimes.

We had to overthrow the democratic government, they were going to install a dictatorship!

Just because a government has been elected at some point doesn't mean that it's a democratic government.  Democracy is much more about institutions than it is about elections.  An elected government that dismantles democratic institutions is not a democratic government.  If Russian military overthrows Putin tomorrow, would it be an unqualified bad in your view?

Are questioning if the elections were fair in Egypt?  If they were not would it have been acceptable if The Muslim Brotherhood overthrew a liberal reformer who had "won" the election?  Otherwise I'm not seeing the point.  As I understand it, a new constitution hadn't been written for Egypt so there were no democratic institutions to dismantle as of yet.  All of this was in flux, and there was still debate on how the new government would look.  Before the debate was concluded there was a military coup and a slaughter.

[DGuller]

Are questioning if the elections were fair in Egypt?  If they were not would it have been acceptable if The Muslim Brotherhood overthrew a liberal reformer who had "won" the election?  Otherwise I'm not seeing the point.  As I understand it, a new constitution hadn't been written for Egypt so there were no democratic institutions to dismantle as of yet.  All of this was in flux, and there was still debate on how the new government would look.  Before the debate was concluded there was a military coup and a slaughter.

I was not talking about Egypt at all, I was talking about Turkey and its military.  In Egypt, the military stepped in so soon that we didn't get to see MB's commitment to real democracy in practice, but the early signs were very discouraging.  Egypt's junta is also the kind that sticks around to govern (badly) for decades, which wasn't the MO of the Turkish military.

[The Brain]

MB's commitment to real democracy

[dps]

Are questioning if the elections were fair in Egypt?  If they were not would it have been acceptable if The Muslim Brotherhood overthrew a liberal reformer who had "won" the election?  Otherwise I'm not seeing the point.  As I understand it, a new constitution hadn't been written for Egypt so there were no democratic institutions to dismantle as of yet.  All of this was in flux, and there was still debate on how the new government would look.  Before the debate was concluded there was a military coup and a slaughter.

I was not talking about Egypt at all, I was talking about Turkey and its military.  In Egypt, the military stepped in so soon that we didn't get to see MB's commitment to real democracy in practice, but the early signs were very discouraging.  Egypt's junta is also the kind that sticks around to govern (badly) for decades, which wasn't the MO of the Turkish military.

Historically, the Turkish military has been about the best example you can find of a military that removes an elected government to keep the government from dismantling democratic institutions, and then actually has new elections and steps aside relatively quickly.  In fact, off hand I can't think of any other examples, though there probably are some that just aren't coming to mind right now.