Turkey's Presidential Takeover?

[Sheilbh]

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.

Not really. They've very rarely stepped in to stop a government from dismantling democratic institutions. It's normally because there's some sort of economic or political chaos. They step in, restore order, restore democracy and protect the military.

I think that's common in most of the countries that have 'guardian coups': Pakistan, Bangladesh, Thailand. It's not normally saving democracy from a despot but saving the country (or a particular order/social system) from social and economic chaos. But also, looking at that list of countries, I'm not sure it's a group you'd really want to join.

Arguably that's why they never succeeded against AKP. Compared with most Turkish governments they've been successful and competent - though I doubt it'll last given the frankly mad economic policy they're running now.

[DGuller]

To be fair to Egyptian military, the previous time they staged a coup, against Mubarak, they did relinquish the power to an elected civilian fairly quickly.

[Razgovory]

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.

Ah, okay.  So instead of Putin lets say Hungary, they are NATO and western allied so they make better counter example.  If they overthrew Orban, brought back the socialist system and tried Tamas for murder, would you think of this an improvement?  I wouldn't.

[alfred russel]

Ah, okay.  So instead of Putin lets say Hungary, they are NATO and western allied so they make better counter example.  If they overthrew Orban, brought back the socialist system and tried Tamas for murder, would you think of this an improvement?  I wouldn't.

Raz, don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I agree that bringing back socialism is uncalled for, but it seems they'd be getting the really big things right.

[alfred russel]

There seems to be an evolving assumption that democracy involves:

-elections which control the government.
-protection of minority and other human rights.

I don't think it is profound to point out that if the people of a country don't want to the latter, democracy as we think of it will be impossible.

[DGuller]

Ah, okay.  So instead of Putin lets say Hungary, they are NATO and western allied so they make better counter example.  If they overthrew Orban, brought back the socialist system and tried Tamas for murder, would you think of this an improvement?  I wouldn't.

You lost me.  Why are they a better counter example?

[Sheilbh]

Democracy as we think of it will evolve. All that makes democracy is your first point.

I think it's inevitable as people in more communitarian or religious societies want the rights and benefits of democracy (managing transitions, controlling, directing and electing their governors) but don't suddenly change the basis of their society.

There has always been an assumption when talking about democracy that it is in itself a moderating and liberalising force. So the Muslim Brotherhood will moderate and Egypt will liberalise through the process of elections. I don't think that's necessarily true. I think democracy is fundamentally a neutral benefit to its societies, but it doesn't necessarily create liberalism. In the West it was the other way round, and even then not universally. There was a long period of limiting democracy because it would open the gates to mob rule, which we still see in Yi's analogy of the impoverished wolves voting against the poor, rich wolf. Like secularism, liberal democracy is a wonderful idea with a very high body count that we don't often acknowledge.

But as countries, as I say, break the Western circuit of liberalism then democracy (and why shouldn't they?) then I think we'll be confronted with a different form. For example there is overwhelming support in the polls in the Arab world for Islam and Islamic law having a place in political life - which is why even autocrats saving us from extremists, like Sisi, pass Islamist constitutions. I think we just need to accept that whatever democracy is formed in the Arab world is going to be one with a huge dose of Islamism, similarly in parts of Africa I think it will have a strong tribal element (many parties aren't ideological but tribal units in parts of East Africa for example) and so on.

Maybe over time, with exposure to Western pop culture and lifestyles there will be a shift towards a more liberal vision of society and I think that's possible because I think it's very often more attractive. But I don't necessarily think that democracy needs liberalism (or vice-versa, you can generally live a freer life in Morocco than Morsi's Egypt), but it is a benefit in itself that we should generally support.

[DGuller]

I think the reason people say that democracy can't go without liberalism is not because democracy is inherently liberal, but because democracy is unsustainable without liberalism.

[Tonitrus]

I think we have a tendency to forget that our "liberal Western democracy" model is really still in its infancy.  For most of the West, it is still less than a century old.

- We had a good start, busted ourselves up pretty good over it, and have been coasting along.
- I've always had the impression that the UK just kind morphed into it slowly.
- France jumped bloodily into the deep end, and then back out again, and then slowly morphed into it. 
- Germany/Japan had to have it beaten/castrated into them.
- Spain only recently just got another shot at it.
- I doubt anyone is entirely sure Italy has it.
- Eastern Europe escaped into it (hoping to be bought out by it).
- Most of the rest smaller states just kinda play "follow the leader"...or they don't.
- Russia, of course, never really had it yet.

Hell, if you want to limit the criteria of a "liberal western democracy" to including women's suffrage, it's even younger.

[Razgovory]

Ah, okay.  So instead of Putin lets say Hungary, they are NATO and western allied so they make better counter example.  If they overthrew Orban, brought back the socialist system and tried Tamas for murder, would you think of this an improvement?  I wouldn't.

You lost me.  Why are they a better counter example?

Turkey is a Nato country.  Russia is not, it's an enemy country.  Putin is bad not just because he has rolled back democratic reforms (which were weak to begin with), but because he takes chunks out of other people's countries.  If he was an impeccable democrat, he'd still be a problem with the Ukrainian thing.

[Razgovory]

I think the reason people say that democracy can't go without liberalism is not because democracy is inherently liberal, but because democracy is unsustainable without liberalism.

I disagree.

[grumbler]

I think the reason people say that democracy can't go without liberalism is not because democracy is inherently liberal, but because democracy is unsustainable without liberalism.

I'm willing to agree with that to the extent that a willingness to accept electoral defeat and enter the "loyal opposition" is seen as a liberal virtue.  To me, that is the key to the long-term success of democracy. 

[Malthus]

I think the reason people say that democracy can't go without liberalism is not because democracy is inherently liberal, but because democracy is unsustainable without liberalism.

I'm willing to agree with that to the extent that a willingness to accept electoral defeat and enter the "loyal opposition" is seen as a liberal virtue.  To me, that is the key to the long-term success of democracy.

Perhaps without some notion of liberalism the stakes are sometimes seen as being simply too high for the losers of an election to agree to that.

Particularly where a party represents an ethnic or religious faction, losing may mean repression (without some notion of liberalism). So the rational response to losing an election isn't to accept 'loyal opposition' status, but to man the barracades.

[dps]

I think the reason people say that democracy can't go without liberalism is not because democracy is inherently liberal, but because democracy is unsustainable without liberalism.

I'm willing to agree with that to the extent that a willingness to accept electoral defeat and enter the "loyal opposition" is seen as a liberal virtue.  To me, that is the key to the long-term success of democracy.

Perhaps without some notion of liberalism the stakes are sometimes seen as being simply too high for the losers of an election to agree to that.

Particularly where a party represents an ethnic or religious faction, losing may mean repression (without some notion of liberalism). So the rational response to losing an election isn't to accept 'loyal opposition' status, but to man the barracades.

I simply don't buy the notion that some people "aren't ready" for democracy.  It's a position for dictators to hide behind.

That said, I will agree that in a society that lacks a history of democratic institutions, it's relatively easy for anti-democratic elements to undermine the system, especially when there are religious, ethnic, or other social distinctions for them to exploit.

[Razgovory]

I do not think liberalism is necessary to being a Democracy.  A country can be democratic and still be illiberal.  Singapore is an example of this.  The earliest Greek Democracies were not liberal, and early American Democracy would be seem as rather oppressive by our standards.