QuoteIs This What A Presidential Takeover Looks Like?
February 5, 2015 § 1 Comment
For political scientists interested in political development, it is in many ways more interesting to study why democracies break down than how democracies form. After all, the best predictor of whether a state is democratic at any given time is whether the state was a democracy previously, so delving into how and why authoritarian reversals occur is a fun field (for a deep dive into the subject, Jay Ulfelder does really good work, such as this). Democratic breakdowns come in a few flavors, but the two most common are military coups and incumbent takeovers (this latter category being when an elected government undermines democracy and the future electoral process). Writing in the British Journal of Political Science last year, Milan Svolik compellingly argued that we should be paying attention to the different categories of breakdown because doing so can give us a sense of where a state might be heading before breakdown occurs. The most interesting insight in Svolik's article to me was his contention that democracies consolidate against military coups but not against incumbent takeovers. In other words, as a democracy ages and democratic rule becomes institutionalized, the risk of a military coup occurring substantially decreases at some point (according to Svolik, this happens somewhere between the 17th and 26th year of democratic government), but the risk of an incumbent takeover does not decrease. He also points to factors that make incumbent takeover a greater or lesser possibility, with a presidential system ten times more likely to break down than a parliamentary or mixed system, while having a history of past military rule makes incumbent takeover less likely because, in Svolik's words, "In a democracy that lacks a history of military rule, an incumbent may succeed in accumulating enough power to subvert democracy, especially if aided by a presidential constitution and natural resources. But in a democracy that was preceded by a military dictatorship, these factors may be insufficient for a successful incumbent takeover because any such attempts will be preempted by a military coup."
Why do I bring any of this stuff up? Because various happenings in Turkey make it look like the country is dangerously on the brink of an incumbent takeover, and Svolik's piece is a useful guide in assessing what might be going on. It will come as no surprise to anyone who regularly reads this blog (or really anyone who keeps on top of international news) that things in Turkey have been going downhill for awhile. The question is not whether Turkish democracy has suffered, since it unquestionably has, but rather at what point do we cease talking about Turkey as a democracy and call it a flat out authoritarian state. I have never liked terms like illiberal democracy or quasi-democracy or troubled democracy, since I think of democracy similarly to the way I think about pregnancy: either a state is a democracy or it isn't. Just as you can't be sort of pregnant, you can't be sort of democratic. So if Turkey has ceased to be a democracy, how will we know and what will that reversal look like?
My friend and erstwhile co-author Steven Cook has a piece in Politico comparing Tayyip Erdoğan's rule to that of patrimonial Arab dictators, and laying out the ways in which Erdoğan has accumulated power and dominated politics. I'd add that since assuming the presidency, Erdoğan has done so in ways that subvert the Turkish constitution by taking over powers accorded to the prime ministry without formally amending the constitution. While it is true that the president has the constitutional power to preside over a cabinet meeting if he so chooses, this power is supposed to be reserved for extraordinary situations such as wars or other crises. And yet, there was Erdoğan last month chairing a meeting of the cabinet and purposefully not ruling out doing so again. Erdoğan has assembled a shadow cabinet of advisers around him that in many ways mimic Turkey's actual cabinet, and he has asserted himself in all sorts of areas that are reserved for the prime minister. The biggest power play was actually symbolic but spoke volumes, when Erdoğan announced that Prime Minister Davutoğlu was to reside in the Çankaya presidential palace because Erdoğan was taking for himself the newly built, monstrously large palace that had been intended for the prime minister.
There is no question that Erdoğan is amassing power in what are unprecedented ways for Turkey since the death of the unapologetically all-powerful founder of the Turkish Republic Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. As former AKP parliamentary foreign affairs chief Suat Kınıklıoğlu writes, "Not a day goes by when our president is not to be seen on television, sometimes three times a day. Close to a dozen TV channels broadcast his speeches live. Even a prominent music channel cuts its broadcast and televises the speech. Total control. It is rather ironic to see how a political movement that aspired to break the authoritarianism of the old order has come to establish an even more effective authoritarian regime itself." Everyone knows what is going on, as it is taking place in broad daylight and over the vociferous opposition of anyone not connected to the AKP. It is also in many ways completely and unabashedly shameless. Look at the government's takeover of Bank Asya just yesterday, for example, which everyone knows is being done to punish Erdoğan's current designee as Public Enemy Number One, Fethullah Gülen. The Gülenists in Turkey have hounded their own enemies for years, and their anguished cries of complete innocence are laughable, no matter what Gülen himself claims in the opinion pages of the New York Times (for a pitch perfect takedown of the op-ed, look no further than Claire Berlinski's rejoinder to Hocaefendi yesterday). Nevertheless, whatever the Gülenist movement's actual sins, nobody credibly believes that the "Bank Asya decision has no political dimension, it is a completely legal decision," as Davutoğlu claimed with a straight face. This is a bill of attainder, pure and simple, and the fact that the people and institutions being targeted are themselves unabashed power-grabbers who subvert Turkey's legal system for their own ends does not make the government's actions democratic or legal. In a more candid moment, Davutoğlu said at a political rally yesterday that he doesn't see why a religious movement needs a bank. Neither do I, but two wrongs don't make a right.
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. Part of the argument against presidential systems comes from a sort of selection bias, in that they were adopted (and failed) in states where the conditions made them especially prone to failure, but the numbers also back up the fact that they lead to more short-lived democracies. Yet, just yesterday Davutoğlu had the following to say: "There is an argument that the presidential system will create authoritarianism. What's your proof for that? Those who have little knowledge of politics and political science know that democracy is implemented both under presidential and parliamentary systems. These are both described as democratic systems in comparative political studies. Inclinations for authoritarianism can come from parliamentary systems as well." Yes, it is true that democracy is implemented in both types of systems, but it is also true that one breaks down at a rate ten times that of the other. Surely the prime minister does not think this is a mere coincidence.
The transformation of Turkey to a presidential system is worrying when it comes to incumbent takeover, but so is the military component, because Svolik's reason for why a military past tends to prevent incumbent takeover does not apply here. The threat of a military coup is supposed to deter an incumbent from amassing too much power and eroding the democratic system, but Turkey's military has been so hollowed out and beaten down by the AKP (and its former move-along-nothing-to-see-here Gülenist allies) that the chances of a coup are close to nil. In fact, in many ways Erdoğan is primarily motivated by Turkey's military past and sees his attainment of more and more power as the ultimate victory over the era of military tutelage. The unique history of the relationship between Erdoğan and the military in the pre-AKP era and the relationship between the AKP and the military since 2002 – and particularly since the failed coup by memorandum attempt in 2007 – actually make Turkey's military past an exacerbating factor rather than a mitigating one. Combined with what Erdoğan has been doing since his election last summer, I don't think any warning about what is coming down the road can possibly be strident enough.
The long and short of it is that Erdoğan is trying to institute a presidential system, and he is determined to do it one way or another. If he (meaning the AKP, his "former" party) passes the magic 330 seat threshold in the June election, he will attempt to do it by using his parliamentary supermajority to amend the constitution without a referendum, and if the AKP falls short, he will just keep on doing what he's been doing until it is a fait accompli. But presidential systems are dangerous vehicles for shaky democracies, and that is even more so when the president is vocal and open about his contempt for liberal and democratic norms, views the entire country as something to be controlled by his personal whims, and sees checks and balances as nothing but a minor inconvenience. I don't know if a complete incumbent takeover has yet happened, but I do know that if we ask that question again five or ten years from now, it will likely be too late.
I'm more interested in why the U.S. is the exception to the rule.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 06, 2015, 10:09:45 AM
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.
Turkey is one case where a military coup would be a good idea as I would think the military there used to be one safeguard of the democracy in that nation. But Erdogan acted early to defang the military and put certain Generals in jail and now we're seeing the results of his authoritarian take over. I've often wondered if in Egypt the military leaders saw this in Turkey and so therefore acted before the Muslim Brotherhood could do similar to neuter the Egyptian military.
Any reason you are against putting in sources, Sheilbh? Also who names their blog Ottomans and Zionists?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 06, 2015, 10:09:45 AM
I'm more interested in why the U.S. is the exception to the rule.
Interesting isn't it?
I've always said a parliamentary democracy moving to presidential is a key sign everything's about to go tits up. But there is the US exception. My guess would be that it's to do with how heavily decentralised the US was and still is comparatively.
QuoteTurkey is one case where a military coup would be a good idea as I would think the military there used to be one safeguard of the democracy in that nation. But Erdogan acted early to defang the military and put certain Generals in jail and now we're seeing the results of his authoritarian take over. I've often wondered if in Egypt the military leaders saw this in Turkey and so therefore acted before the Muslim Brotherhood could do similar to neuter the Egyptian military.
Yeah, because the Egyptian military's doing a great job :bleeding:
Quote from: garbon on February 06, 2015, 10:15:18 AM
Any reason you are against putting in sources, Sheilbh? Also who names their blog Ottomans and Zionists?
No. I don't know if I normally do or if I just forgot.
For the second question - click on the 'about me' section to find out :lol:
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 06, 2015, 10:17:43 AM
For the second question - click on the 'about me' section to find out :lol:
That was rhetorical as I was making a negative judgment of a person who would label their blog that (though not as a commentary on their level of expertise or quality of blog). -_-
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 06, 2015, 10:15:43 AM
Yeah, because the Egyptian military's doing a great job :bleeding:
Nobody has done a great job ruling Egypt since the 11th century....BC.
Quote from: KRonn on February 06, 2015, 10:12:42 AM
Turkey is one case where a military coup would be a good idea as I would think the military there used to be one safeguard of the democracy in that nation. But Erdogan acted early to defang the military and put certain Generals in jail and now we're seeing the results of his authoritarian take over. I've often wondered if in Egypt the military leaders saw this in Turkey and so therefore acted before the Muslim Brotherhood could do similar to neuter the Egyptian military.
I remember certain people here on Languish cheering on Erdogan doing away with the "undemocratic" military in favour of his "democratic" rule. :lol:
Quote from: Valmy on February 06, 2015, 10:24:49 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 06, 2015, 10:15:43 AM
Yeah, because the Egyptian military's doing a great job :bleeding:
Nobody has done a great job ruling Egypt since the 11th century....BC.
I don't know. The Mamelukes were pretty decent for a while.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 06, 2015, 10:15:43 AM
Yeah, because the Egyptian military's doing a great job :bleeding:
I'd still rather them than the Muslim Brotherhood. Neither way is for democracy but the MB is for an extremist type governing which isn't what the Mid East needs more of right now. Losing the dictators hasn't exactly fare well to bring more democracy so far.
Quote from: Martinus on February 06, 2015, 10:25:49 AM
I remember certain people here on Languish cheering on Erdogan doing away with the "undemocratic" military in favour of his "democratic" rule. :lol:
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.
Quote from: KRonn on February 06, 2015, 10:28:31 AM
I'd still rather them than the Muslim Brotherhood.
3000 dead. Mass executions and sentences with over 20 000 imprisoned. Not to mention losing control of the Sinai to extremists.
It doesn't seem like a significantly better record than the MB.
QuoteNeither way is for democracy but the MB is for an extremist type governing which isn't what the Mid East needs more of right now.
How so?
QuoteLosing the dictators hasn't exactly fare well to bring more democracy so far.
The only country that had a revolution and then didn't have a military coup/civil war is doing fine.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 06, 2015, 10:33:49 AM
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.
Quote from: Tonitrus on February 06, 2015, 10:36:22 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 06, 2015, 10:33:49 AM
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.
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?
Quote from: KRonn on February 06, 2015, 10:51:47 AM
Are you really saying that the Muslim Brotherhood would be a good thing for a more democratic Egypt?
Yes.
QuoteAren'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.
QuoteWhy 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
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.
Quote from: Valmy on February 06, 2015, 10:29:08 AM
Quote from: Martinus on February 06, 2015, 10:25:49 AM
I remember certain people here on Languish cheering on Erdogan doing away with the "undemocratic" military in favour of his "democratic" rule. :lol:
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.
Quote from: Valmy on February 06, 2015, 10:24:49 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 06, 2015, 10:15:43 AM
Yeah, because the Egyptian military's doing a great job :bleeding:
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".
If I wanted to be entirely fair I would be looking over various Ottoman Pashas and their policies :P
Quote from: Valmy on February 06, 2015, 10:11:47 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 06, 2015, 10:09:45 AM
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?
Quote from: Martinus on February 06, 2015, 10:25:49 AM
I remember certain people here on Languish cheering on Erdogan doing away with the "undemocratic" military in favour of his "democratic" rule. :lol:
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.
Quote from: Zanza on February 06, 2015, 11:12:30 AM
Quote from: Valmy on February 06, 2015, 10:11:47 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 06, 2015, 10:09:45 AM
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.
Quote from: KRonn on February 06, 2015, 11:05:18 AM
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.
QuoteI 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.
QuoteI 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.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 06, 2015, 10:02:44 AM
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.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 06, 2015, 11:37:15 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: Valmy on February 06, 2015, 12:12:24 PMThings obviously went far worse than I ever imagined.
Really? We're talking the Mid-East. I think you lack imagination :P
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 06, 2015, 12:13:26 PM
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.
I looked it up and his party imposes term limits, not the system.
Erdogan proposed constitutionally giving the president a bunch of powers, but the proposals havent gone anywhere (his party lacks the ability to re write the constitution on its own without a referendum, and the Turkish people are against it). I think the only thing he got to go through was the direct election of the president.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 06, 2015, 07:15:57 PM
Erdogan proposed constitutionally giving the president a bunch of powers, but the proposals havent gone anywhere (his party lacks the ability to re write the constitution on its own without a referendum, and the Turkish people are against it). I think the only thing he got to go through was the direct election of the president.
Okay. Hence why they want a supermajority sufficient to change the constitution without a referendum I suppose. I thought he'd managed to get most of them through with the support of the Kurds, but was wrong :(
So at the minute he's just de Gaulle on the cusp of the V :ph34r:
Teh Horror!
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 06, 2015, 10:17:43 AM
Quote from: garbon on February 06, 2015, 10:15:18 AM
Any reason you are against putting in sources, Sheilbh? Also who names their blog Ottomans and Zionists?
No. I don't know if I normally do or if I just forgot.
So survey says, you generally avoid source links.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 07, 2015, 12:01:10 AM
Yeah, how silly of me to be unsupportive of military dictatorship.
That is not the silly part.
Quote from: Zanza on February 06, 2015, 11:14:38 AM
Quote from: Martinus on February 06, 2015, 10:25:49 AM
I remember certain people here on Languish cheering on Erdogan doing away with the "undemocratic" military in favour of his "democratic" rule. :lol:
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.
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.
Eh, if Obama suddenly starts acting like the Antichrist, Siege will take credit for having seen it all along.
(Yes, of course Siege believes in the prophecies in the Book of Revelation. Why wouldn't he? :huh:)
Quote from: Martinus on February 07, 2015, 01:27:21 AM
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.
It must mean a great deal to you being right for once. :)
Quote from: Valmy on February 07, 2015, 12:37:56 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 07, 2015, 12:01:10 AM
Yeah, how silly of me to be unsupportive of military dictatorship.
That is not the silly part.
No the silly part was everyone here screaming about the impeding Islamic theocracy in Turkey, and then looking the other way when thousands were slaughtered in Egypt.
Quote from: Valmy on February 06, 2015, 12:12:24 PMAnd 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.
I can't agree. Qatar, Bahrain, and UAE generally have pretty effective monarchies and I don't think knocking them off "by force" would do any good in the world. The rich tiny gulf states are some of the best run countries in the Arab world. Kuwait and Jordan are both monarchies but are both constitutional monarchies in sort of the 18th century sense of the word where there is true power sharing. I think that's a good model and one that can gradually lead to true democratization, just as it did in Britain for example.
The Saudi monarchy is the most troubling and probably the most difficult to deal with. The West likes the Saudis because they have unabashedly been pro-Western, but they can only rule Wahhabist Saudi Arabia by allowing horrific repression by extremist Muslims in the form of the religious police and Sharia judges who can hand down punishments unrelated to any code or statute but instead simply "what they think appropriate" from their study of religious texts. The Saudis deal with the Wahhabists makes it more and more difficult for them to maintain their relationship with the West because the Wahhabists hate the West. If Westerners dropped their support for the House of Saud, likely they would have to embrace extremists more closely, since they would have no Western relationship to help maintain their power base. If Westerners supported a Saudi democracy it would likely turn into a government little different than that which the Islamic State wishes to setup in its Caliphate.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 06, 2015, 10:59:31 AMThey 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.
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.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 06, 2015, 11:37:15 AMI 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 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.
Quote from: Martinus on February 06, 2015, 10:25:49 AM
Quote from: KRonn on February 06, 2015, 10:12:42 AM
Turkey is one case where a military coup would be a good idea as I would think the military there used to be one safeguard of the democracy in that nation. But Erdogan acted early to defang the military and put certain Generals in jail and now we're seeing the results of his authoritarian take over. I've often wondered if in Egypt the military leaders saw this in Turkey and so therefore acted before the Muslim Brotherhood could do similar to neuter the Egyptian military.
I remember certain people here on Languish cheering on Erdogan doing away with the "undemocratic" military in favour of his "democratic" rule. :lol:
names, please. :)
Quote from: viper37 on February 07, 2015, 12:39:50 PM
Quote from: Martinus on February 06, 2015, 10:25:49 AM
Quote from: KRonn on February 06, 2015, 10:12:42 AM
Turkey is one case where a military coup would be a good idea as I would think the military there used to be one safeguard of the democracy in that nation. But Erdogan acted early to defang the military and put certain Generals in jail and now we're seeing the results of his authoritarian take over. I've often wondered if in Egypt the military leaders saw this in Turkey and so therefore acted before the Muslim Brotherhood could do similar to neuter the Egyptian military.
I remember certain people here on Languish cheering on Erdogan doing away with the "undemocratic" military in favour of his "democratic" rule. :lol:
names, please. :)
Raz, Sheilbh, Zanza and (I think) Timmy.
Martinus do you think of military coups as "democratic" process?
Quote from: KRonn on February 06, 2015, 10:12:42 AM
Turkey is one case where a military coup would be a good idea as I would think the military there used to be one safeguard of the democracy in that nation.
The military have mostly been concerned with keeping the secular nature of the state intact. Democracy, not so much.
If it weren't for the fact that Turkey's a fairly important regional player, Erdogan's delusions of grandeur would mostly funny. This Atatürk v. 2.0 malarkey is just worrying.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 07, 2015, 11:13:06 AM
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.
QuoteI 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 :P
QuoteIf 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.
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.
Should only the US be concerned?
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 08, 2015, 11:43:14 AM
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 07, 2015, 05:47:02 PM
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 08, 2015, 11:47:57 AM
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.
Quote from: DGuller on February 08, 2015, 01:49:49 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 07, 2015, 05:47:02 PM
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.
They are hardly "acceptable".
Quote from: Razgovory on February 08, 2015, 02:11:53 PM
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.
QuoteWe 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?
Quote from: DGuller on February 08, 2015, 02:17:17 PM
An elected government that dismantles democratic institutions is not a democratic government.
wut
Quote from: DGuller on February 08, 2015, 02:17:17 PM
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.
Quote from: DGuller on February 08, 2015, 02:17:17 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 08, 2015, 02:11:53 PM
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.
QuoteWe 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.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 08, 2015, 03:14:33 PM
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.
Quote from: DGuller on February 08, 2015, 03:34:05 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 08, 2015, 03:14:33 PM
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.
Quote from: dps on February 08, 2015, 05:52:05 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: DGuller on February 08, 2015, 03:34:05 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 08, 2015, 03:14:33 PM
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 08, 2015, 06:55:11 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 08, 2015, 06:55:11 PM
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.
:huh: You lost me. Why are they a better counter example?
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.
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 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.
Quote from: DGuller on February 08, 2015, 08:02:56 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 08, 2015, 06:55:11 PM
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.
:huh: 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.
Quote from: DGuller on February 08, 2015, 08:30:19 PM
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.
Quote from: DGuller on February 08, 2015, 08:30:19 PM
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.
Quote from: grumbler on February 09, 2015, 01:35:46 PM
Quote from: DGuller on February 08, 2015, 08:30:19 PM
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.
Quote from: Malthus on February 09, 2015, 01:44:49 PM
Quote from: grumbler on February 09, 2015, 01:35:46 PM
Quote from: DGuller on February 08, 2015, 08:30:19 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 09, 2015, 03:41:33 PM
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.
Do you have a better example than Singapore?
Quote from: Valmy on February 09, 2015, 03:44:28 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 09, 2015, 03:41:33 PM
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.
Do you have a better example than Singapore?
Post Soviet Russia. The US South from 1870's to 1960's. South Africa.
The issue isn't "liberalism" is some wider sense, but something very specific - "liberalism" meaning some system or attitude that guarantees that the winners of elections will exercise restraint in dealing with the losers, so that it makes sense for the losers to give their loyalty to the system rather than rebelling against it.
The examples of South Africa and the US South are useful: South Africa's democracy rather expressly relies for its existence on a guarantee that the majority will not take revenge on the White minority for Apartheid; the US South relied, for years, on a systematic repression of the Black minority - which ended when it became clear that ongoing revolts against the system were a serious possibility, if some measure of liberalism were not imposed.
In short, a "winner takes all" democracy lacking any such notion of liberalism (in the narrow sense) would be difficult to keep stable: the losing minority would have no reason to accept the legitimacy of the system.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 09, 2015, 03:52:25 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 09, 2015, 03:44:28 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 09, 2015, 03:41:33 PM
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.
Do you have a better example than Singapore?
Post Soviet Russia. The US South from 1870's to 1960's. South Africa.
Post-Soviet Russia almost immediately fall into totalitarianism. Those other two states did have liberal values, it is just that having second class citizens based on race is not necessarily inconsistent with that. Granted there were issues like that coup in Wilmington North Carolina which, as far as I know, is the only time an elected US government was overthrown by force.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilmington_insurrection_of_1898
But beyond that...
Er, no. Putin is not Totalitarian. North Korea is Totalitarian.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 09, 2015, 04:15:49 PM
Er, no. Putin is not Totalitarian. North Korea is Totalitarian.
Ok then what is he?
Funny stuff: people taking Raz's trolling seriously.
Talking about Putin when you talk about the death of Russian democracy is misleading. Russian democracy barely started and very quickly ended with Yeltsin. Yeltsin was never going to lose the 1996 election, regardless of how Russian people voted.
Quote from: Martinus on February 09, 2015, 04:20:06 PM
Funny stuff: people taking Raz's trolling seriously.
Given that he thinks that drug dealing = "libertarianism," I am surprised anyone gives his postings a second thought.
Quote from: grumbler on February 09, 2015, 06:11:20 PM
Quote from: Martinus on February 09, 2015, 04:20:06 PM
Funny stuff: people taking Raz's trolling seriously.
Given that he thinks that drug dealing = "libertarianism," I am surprised anyone gives his postings a second thought.
I'm glad you read that one. The guy who set it up was a self described libertarian and in his legal defense he described it as a "market experiment".
Quote from: DGuller on February 09, 2015, 05:50:03 PM
Talking about Putin when you talk about the death of Russian democracy is misleading. Russian democracy barely started and very quickly ended with Yeltsin. Yeltsin was never going to lose the 1996 election, regardless of how Russian people voted.
Note, I did not say "Post Yeltsin Russia".
Quote from: Valmy on February 09, 2015, 04:17:58 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 09, 2015, 04:15:49 PM
Er, no. Putin is not Totalitarian. North Korea is Totalitarian.
Ok then what is he?
Garden variety corrupt pseudo-democrat, possibly transitioning to straight up dictatorship.
But yeah, Putin wishes he was totalitarian, but he doesn't have that level of control I don't think.
I think the Russian government is basically run like SPECTRE. But with less cat stroking.
Quote from: Tonitrus on February 10, 2015, 02:19:58 AM
I think the Russian government is basically run like SPECTRE. But with less cat stroking.
I'm sure Putin is stroking some pussy.
Quote from: Tonitrus on February 10, 2015, 02:19:58 AM
I think the Russian government is basically run like SPECTRE. But with less cat stroking.
:yeahright:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.usatoday.net%2Fnews%2F_photos%2F2008%2F10%2F10%2Ftigerx.jpg&hash=7725f8de19e21851f02eaa337901c81b4dbbff3b)
Oh shit, was that Putin petting a fucking tiger?
Obama needs to man up!
There is no point trying to outdo Putin in the machismo department. He has that one locked up.
Putin presenting Sisi with an AK-47:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.independent.co.uk%2Fincoming%2Farticle10035643.ece%2Falternates%2Fw620%2Fv2-putin-afp-getty.jpg&hash=2611ce54339f64dda68346f046d0c072c1544626)
And Egypt's getting a free trade deal with the Eurasian Union.
Why would a democratic leader have a deal with a military dictatorship :mad:
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 10, 2015, 01:00:53 PM
And Egypt's getting a free trade deal with the Eurasian Union.
:huh: Why would anybody even take the Eurasian Union seriously when not even Khazakstan and Belarus do?
If Armenia takes it seriously then maybe Spellus might.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thedailyrash.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F09%2F600b09201e1.jpg&hash=a406a25057c25a8ac22fe2055c472df38c0b8998)
It was pretty obvious during his first run for President that Obama is a tremendous nerd. Ah well it is what this country is coming to.
Quote from: Valmy on February 10, 2015, 01:17:23 PM
It was pretty obvious during his first run for President that Obama is a tremendous nerd.
Dunno-- a lot of people here seemed to think he was a badass around that time.
Quote from: derspiess on February 10, 2015, 01:23:52 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 10, 2015, 01:17:23 PM
It was pretty obvious during his first run for President that Obama is a tremendous nerd.
Dunno-- a lot of people here seemed to think he was a badass around that time.
They clearly never saw that video of him bowling. But consider the audience, being a tremendous nerd might make you a badass to some people.
Hmm, fair point.
Quote from: Valmy on February 10, 2015, 12:56:21 PM
There is no point trying to outdo Putin in the machismo department. He has that one locked up.
A Putin-Netanyahu cage fight would be awesome. :lol:
Putin is slightly younger, but Netanyahu was an actual elite combat soldier rather than just a KGB goon, so he may have the edge.
I need a Bibi-sitter.
Quote from: Tonitrus on February 10, 2015, 02:19:58 AM
I think the Russian government is basically run like SPECTRE. But with less cat stroking.
YOU DONT KNOW THAT FOR SURE
Not sure where to post this, as it could equally be in the Charlie Hebdou thread or the one about the attack in Denmark, but I think it belongs here because of the 'target'.
This guy is an acquaintance of mine, I haven't seen or heard about him in a while, but given Erdogen's growing authoritarianism I think it's appropriate to commend him here for advocating free speech in a difficult environment and for standing up to a tyrant.
Worth a read and I think Wiki gives a fair summing up of events:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Dickinson_(artist) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Dickinson_(artist))
Quote
.....
Turkish court case[edit]
In June 2006, Istanbul police removed one of Dickinson's collages from a show in the city organised by the Global Peace and Justice Coalition.[2] Dickinson states that he hung his work in the show unknown to the organisers.[5] The collage showed the Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdoğan as a dog being presented with a rosette by President Bush in a pet show.[2] He was informed by Turkish authorities that he would be prosecuted for "insulting the Prime Minister's dignity"; the charge carries a sentence of one to three years.[6]
Best in Show collage by Michael Dickinson showing Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdoğan as a dog given a rosette by US President George Bush
The Times said: "The case could greatly embarrass Turkey and Britain, for it raises questions about Turkey's human rights record as it seeks EU membership, with Tony Blair's backing."[2] Charles Thomson, co-founder of the Stuckist movement, wrote to British Prime Minister Tony Blair asking for his intervention:[7] "It is intolerable that a country applying for EU membership should censor freedom of political comment in this way. I trust you will communicate your strongest condemnation and ask for this case to be abandoned immediately. I ask for your assurance that you will oppose Turkish EU membership in the strongest terms, until Turkey adopts the attitudes of the civilised world towards human rights."[8] Dickinson said: "It's such an Alice in Wonderland feeling. The law is so absurd ... This law exists in Turkey about insulting 'Turkishness' or the State. You're not allowed to state your opinion."[2]
In September 2006, Dickinson attended the trial of Erkan Kara, organiser of the Global Peace and Justice Coalition show, charged with insulting behaviour for exhibiting Dickinson's work. The prosecutor described Dickinson as "ill-intentioned", but declined to bring a case because of "lack of evidence".[5] Hasan Gungor of the Istanbul-based group, Initiative for Freedom of Speech, attributed this to fear of international news, when the European Union has concerns over freedom of speech in Turkey.[5]
Good Boy by Michael Dickinson. He was prosecuted for its display.
Members of Global Peace and Justic Coalition remonstrated with Dickinson for distracting attention from their anti-Iraq War cause, and he then held up another collage showing Erdogan as a dog with a lead of the stars and stripes; he was arrested and charged with insulting the Turkish prime minister's dignity[5] with a trial date scheduled for October 2007.[9] He was then held for ten days, three in prison and seven in the Detention Centre for Foreigners.[10] During his transfer between facilities, he attempted to escape, but was shot at by a policeman, who recaptured him.[11]
In July 2007, Dickinson's collages were displayed at the A Gallery, London, in the Stuckist show I Won't Have Sex with You as long as We're Married.[12]
On 25 September 2008, he was acquitted of any crime, the judge ruling that although there were "some insulting elements" in his collage, it fell "within the limits of criticism".[1] The case has favourable implications for Turkey's relationship with the European Union, which had called for an improvement of its human rights record.[1] Dickinson said, "I am lucky to be acquitted. There are still artists in Turkey facing prosecution and being sentenced for their opinions."[1]
In June 2009, Dickinson fled Turkey for his native country, Britain, after learning that his acquittal had been overturned. Unable to find work, he returned to Istanbul soon after. In January 2010, a Turkish court convicted Dickinson of mocking the Turkish prime minister and levied a fine. Refusing to pay the fine as a matter of principle, Dickinson faces up to two years in prison.[13] His final sentencing will occur at a trial on 9 March 2010.
Dickinson's application for a residence permit was refused due to his 2010 conviction, but he remained in the country after the expiry of his tourist visa. He was arrested in October 2013 for shouting Gezi Park-related slogans at police, and detained after his expired visa was discovered. He was deported after some days (and banned from returning for five years), choosing to go to Barcelona rather than his native Britain.[14]
......
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F7%2F7a%2FMichael_Dickinson._Best_in_Show.jpg&hash=4a46d333ade4a2fc012aa09a5acbdb439ed14cd0)
QuoteBest in Show collage by Michael Dickinson showing Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdoğan as a dog given a rosette by US President George Bush
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F7%2F73%2FMichael_Dickinson._Good_Boy.jpg&hash=e71871a61d02f880ff558bebeaaf327fe4640a4e)
QuoteGood Boy by Michael Dickinson. He was prosecuted for its display.
I can see why Michael Dickinson can't find work as an artist. Those things are atrocious.
Was Turkey represented in the march in Paris with all those other world leaders? So ironic that in many of those countries that took part in that event, they clamp down on free speech.
Yep, with the Turkish PM. Even Orban was there, along with Lavrov and some kleptocrats. :x
Quote from: KRonn on February 19, 2015, 10:42:26 AM
Was Turkey represented in the march in Paris with all those other world leaders? So ironic that in many of those countries that took part in that event, they clamp down on free speech.
Yes, which is why I posted the link, as he's directly challenged the growing authoritarianism of the president; you or I don't have to agree with the content of his art or what public issues he's highlighting, but it does seem a good test of the limits to free speech there.
Quote from: grumbler on February 18, 2015, 08:53:58 PM
I can see why Michael Dickinson can't find work as an artist. Those things are atrocious.
Remember Art class in elementary school, where the teacher brought out a bunch of magazines, scissors and Elmer's glue so everybody could make collages? That was better.
Quote from: grumbler on February 18, 2015, 08:53:58 PM
I can see why Michael Dickinson can't find work as an artist. Those things are atrocious.
He swings, he misses.
Good job you're not the sole arbiter of taste in the world.
For the record, for the short time he was back in the UK he was homeless so didn't have access to a studio or much change of doing more works.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on February 19, 2015, 10:43:45 AM
Yep, with the Turkish PM. Even Orban was there, among with Lavrov and some kleptocrats :x
Yeah, that was a pretty bad showing, I guess the French thought presenting a united international community was worth those compromises.
Quote from: mongers on February 19, 2015, 10:48:44 AM
He swings, he misses.
Good job you're not the sole arbiter of taste in the world.
For the record, for the short time he was back in the UK he was homeless so didn't have access to a studio or much change of doing more works.
I like the Corgi in the picture with Dubya, and obvious reference to the UK as the US's "lap dog". Woof.
Quote from: mongers on February 19, 2015, 10:50:21 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on February 19, 2015, 10:43:45 AM
Yep, with the Turkish PM. Even Orban was there, among with Lavrov and some kleptocrats :x
Yeah, that was a pretty bad showing, I guess the French thought presenting a united international community was worth those compromises.
Yeah, I'd say it was at least effective in that it spoke against the Islamic extremism, so it's better that nations and leaders made the statements. Maybe the irony/hypocrisy won't be so lost on them, and begin to open some views a bit as well on freedoms.
Quote from: mongers on February 19, 2015, 10:48:44 AM
Quote from: grumbler on February 18, 2015, 08:53:58 PM
I can see why Michael Dickinson can't find work as an artist. Those things are atrocious.
He swings, he misses.
Good job you're not the sole arbiter of taste in the world.
For the record, for the short time he was back in the UK he was homeless so didn't have access to a studio or much change of doing more works.
I hate to agree with Grumbler, but that is terrible.
Quote from: mongers on February 19, 2015, 10:48:44 AM
He swings, he misses.
Good job you're not the sole arbiter of taste in the world.
For the record, for the short time he was back in the UK he was homeless so didn't have access to a studio or much change of doing more works.
Quote from: mongersTalk about damning with faint praise, given my level of art appreciation is "Ug likes picture/ Ug doesn't like picture"
If those are the kind of pictures Ug likes, he should keep it to himself. :P
http://news.yahoo.com/brawl-turkey-parliament-puts-focus-erdogan-power-plays-145801472.html
QuoteBrawl in Turkey parliament puts focus on Erdogan power plays
ANKARA, Turkey (AP) — Chairs flew and lawmakers traded punches. A brawl in Parliament over a new security bill has forced the spotlight on mounting suspicions that President Recep Tayyip Erdogan's real goal is to hand himself more tools to crush dissent.
Five lawmakers were injured early Wednesday in the fight that broke out as opposition leaders tried to delay a debate on the legislation.
The government says the measures to give police heightened powers to break up demonstrations are aimed at preventing violence such as the deadly clashes that broke out last year between Kurds, supporters of an Islamist group and police. Critics say that the new measures are part of a steady march toward blocking mass demonstrations that threaten Erdogan's iron grip over Turkish politics.
The bill would expand police rights to use firearms, allow them to search people or vehicles without a court order and detain people for up to 48 hours without prosecutor authorization. Police would also be permitted to use firearms against demonstrators who hurl Molotov cocktails. Demonstrators who cover their faces with masks or scarves during violent demonstrations could face four years in prison.
Crucially, the measures would give governors — not just prosecutors and judges — the right to order arrests.
In defending the bill, Erdogan said it was "aimed at protecting social order and social peace." Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu dismissed accusations that the measures will violate civil liberties, saying the goal is to protect society: "No one will be able to demonstrate with Molotov cocktails," he said over the weekend.
Metin Feyzioglu, the head of the Turkish Bar Association, said that giving local governors even limited powers to order arrests without going court orders is tantamount to martial law. "This is an extremely dangerous development," he said.
In recent years, Turkey has curbed media freedoms, cracked down on critical social media postings and prosecuted hundreds of people who took part in violent mass protests against the government in 2013 that centered on Istanbul's Taksim Gezi Square. In one case, Turkish prosecutors are seeking possible jail time for a former television presenter who posted a tweet suggesting a cover-up in a government corruption scandal. A Turkish schoolboy was also charged for publicly criticizing Erdogan over the scandal — falling afoul of a law against insulting the president.
"Erdogan is aware that he is not going to be able to achieve his goals through purely democratic means," said Gareth Jenkins, an Istanbul-based analyst with the Institute for Security and Development Policy. "If you are trying to stop people from expressing their opinions, it is a sign that you are not accountable."
The government has even extended its crackdown to sporting events, mindful of the outsized role that soccer fans from some Istanbul professional teams played in the Gezi protests. Prosecutors are seeking life sentences for dozens of fans from one club, Besiktas, on charges that they helped organize the protests as part of a coup.
Under regulations that went into effect last year, fans are required to register personal details in advance, including their government ID number and preferred team, before they can buy a ticket. The government says that the regulations, which were written before the protests, are solely aimed at preventing hooliganism — but fans are suspicious of such claims.
"There is the perception that the aim is to keep track of people," said Bagis Erten, a sports analyst and production manager of Eurosport Turkey.
The government says that the new security law was crafted to conform to European norms. But the Council of Europe's commissioner for human rights criticized the bill, saying that it increased the likelihood of police human rights violations.
"I therefore urge the Turkish Parliament to reconsider the current proposals in the light of relevant international standards," Nils Muiznieks said in a statement.
Opposition parties have vowed to obstruct the bill by submitting hundreds of proposed amendments. The beginning of debate was scheduled for Tuesday, but after hours of delay, fighting broke out during a closed-door session after opposition parties submitted several unrelated motions in their bid to hamper the bill.
Lawmakers threw chairs and two legislators were hit with the gavel. Two legislators were hospitalized, with three others treated in the parliamentary infirmary.
Kurdish lawmakers say they fear the new measures could be aimed at repressing Kurdish demonstrators. If passed, they warn it could jeopardize ongoing peace talks between the government and a Kurdish militant group.
"We will do all in our power to stop the bill," said pro-Kurdish party leader Selahattin Demirtas. "We will act together with all opposition legislators and cause a gridlock in parliament that will last for months."
But few believe the opposition effort will succeed: Erdogan's ruling Justice and Development Party has a strong majority in Parliament — and is likely to eventually find a way to ram through the bill.
Erdogan giving more power to the regional governors? Will fear keep the local cities in line?
Also, buying football tickets sounds like a nightmare. :wacko:
Quote from: Syt on February 20, 2015, 11:15:03 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/brawl-turkey-parliament-puts-focus-erdogan-power-plays-145801472.html (http://news.yahoo.com/brawl-turkey-parliament-puts-focus-erdogan-power-plays-145801472.html)
Also, buying football tickets sounds like a nightmare. :wacko:
Well, Turkish football fans had it coming. Well known supporters' groups of the four big Turkish clubs Galatasaray, Fenerbahçe, Beşiktaş and Trabzonspor (three of Istanbul, one of Trabzon/Trebizond) were part of the Gezi/Taksim demonstrations. Quite a feat for Erdogan to unite them. :)
Quote from: mongers on February 19, 2015, 10:48:44 AM
He swings, he misses.
Good job you're not the sole arbiter of taste in the world.
For the record, for the short time he was back in the UK he was homeless so didn't have access to a studio or much change of doing more works.
And its a good job you are the only person who thinks that this is "art." Once you've run out of money to buy shit "art" with, all "artists" like this one will be homeless so won't have access to a studio or much change of doing more works...
Well, if the purpose of the art was to create discussion and debate in society, and portray Erdogan as something of a pathetic tyrant, it would seem to be massively successful. CdM's assessment nonwithstanding, I haven't seen to much elementary school art as effective at getting a message across.
Quote from: grumbler on February 20, 2015, 11:35:32 AM
And its a good job you are the only person who thinks that this is "art." Once you've run out of money to buy shit "art" with, all "artists" like this one will be homeless so won't have access to a studio or much change of doing more works...
He's not the only person who thinks that, with or without scare quotes.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 20, 2015, 12:15:09 PM
Well, if the purpose of the art was to create discussion and debate in society, and portray Erdogan as something of a pathetic tyrant, it would seem to be massively successful. CdM's assessment nonwithstanding, I haven't seen to much elementary school art as effective at getting a message across.
Clearly this conflict with the official grumbler view and cannot be allowed to stand.
So when is Erdogan going to be charged under the law against insulting the President?
Or does the law have an exemption for unintended self-parody?
Quote from: alfred russel on February 20, 2015, 12:15:09 PM
Well, if the purpose of the art was to create discussion and debate in society, and portray Erdogan as something of a pathetic tyrant, it would seem to be massively successful. CdM's assessment nonwithstanding, I haven't seen to much elementary school art as effective at getting a message across.
:lmfao: Getting Mongers to defend something on languish isn't much of a "massively successful" accomplishment, especially given the small percentage of overall society that is made up by languish. I'd think Mongers would be as taken by any other elementary-school-level art as he is with Dickenson's elementary-school-level art. I would argue that, for Languish, Erdogan has already portrayed himself as a pathetic tyrant with the costume guards stunt. He doesn't need the help of hack art.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 20, 2015, 02:06:51 PM
So when is Erdogan going to be charged under the law against insulting the President?
Or does the law have an exemption for unintended self-parody?
I think things have now reach the stage in Turkey were it only matters who wields the law as a weapon, rather than the role they place in framing a civil society.
Clearly Grumber is getting so pathetic it's no longer worth discussing anything with him.
For the rest of Languish, I should emphasis that Mr D. was challenging Erdogen, starting back in 2006/7, so I'd say he was ahead of much of the pack by a fair margin.
Labelling him as an American stooge, bought and sold by us yanqui jewish pigdogs is a little hard for me to embrace....but um good on him I guess.
Quote from: Valmy on February 20, 2015, 02:20:52 PM
Labelling him as an American stooge, bought and sold by us yanqui jewish pigdogs is a little hard for me to embrace....but um good on him I guess.
On the other hand, if you do buy it, well, I don't see foreign leaders being stooges for us as a bad thing, necessarily. It worked out pretty well for us with Tony Blair.
http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/former-miss-turkey-faces-prison-for-insulting-president-erdogan.aspx?pageID=238&nID=78838&NewsCatID=341
QuoteFormer Miss Turkey faces prison for 'insulting' President Erdoğan
Model and former Miss Turkey Merve Büyüksaraç is facing up to two years in prison for social media posts that prosecutors claim "insult" President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.
The indictment has been completed as a part of an investigation into Büyüksaraç's post, in which the prosecutor Umut Tepe demanded that she be sentenced to one to two years in prison. The Criminal Court of First Instance in Istanbul will now decide whether to initiate proceedings.
Büyüksaraç, an industrial designer and writer who was crowned Miss Turkey in 2006, was briefly detained and questioned on Jan. 14 for sharing a satirical poem on her Instagram account.
"The Master's Poem," shared by Büyüksaraç, satirically criticized Erdoğan through verses adapted from the lyrics of Turkey's national anthem.
The prosecutor's indictment stated that "The remarks shared by the suspect could not be considered within the terms of freedom of expression."
Büyüksaraç told the prosecutor that she "may have quoted a poem" from the weekly humor magazine Uykusuz, but deleted it soon after when one of her friends warned that such messages could bring about criminal procedures in Turkey.
"I shared it because I found it funny. I had no intention of insulting [Erdoğan]," she said.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.vogue.com.tr%2F2%2F0%2F1%2F8%2F9%2F5%2Fweartoday_photo-201895.jpg&hash=485519fbeba3ded7b73bdb489d5d99aec800aa82)
Also: http://www.dw.de/turkish-police-arrest-dozens-in-wiretapping-scandal/a-18278152
QuoteTurkish police arrest dozens in wiretapping scandal
Turkish authorities have apprehended dozens of suspects in a wiretapping case that targeted high-level officials, including President Erdogan. The scandal is allegedly linked to the US-based cleric Fethullah Gulen.
Nearly 40 people were arrested across Turkey on Wednesday as part of the government's latest efforts to round up suspects linked to a wiretapping scandal against officials.
The chief prosecutor's office in Istanbul had issued a total of 54 arrest warrants, according to Turkish media.
Suspects apprehended in past raids have been police officers, judges and prosecutors allegedly involved in eavesdropping on the country's politicians, including President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who was serving as prime minister in 2013, when the scandal erupted.
During the course of the scandal, incriminating recordings leaked via social media indicated corruption at the highest levels of government. Among the conversations leaked, was one that emerged in February 2014, in which Erdogan allegedly instructed his son Bilal to dispose of 30 million euros ($34 million) in cash. The news broke just ahead of local elections, angering officials in Ankara.
Erdogan and his supporters accuse his archrival Fethullah Gulen of running a "parallel state" and orchestrating the wiretaps in a bid to bring down Turkish politicians, allegations which Gulen denies.
An arrest warrant was issued for the US-based cleric in December. On Tuesday, a Turkish court issued a second warrant for his arrest, upgrading the charges to include terrorism.
The court also issued an arrest warrant against police officer-turned journalist Emre Uslu, who is suspected of having leaked the recordings online and tweeted details of raids against Gulen supporters prior to their occurrence. Uslu, believed to be based in the US, has denied the claims.
Turkish police have carried out several mass sweeps in recent months, including one in December which targeted journalists. The EU and the US condemned the mass arrests as incompatible with the principles of democracy.
Also, several teenagers face long prison sentences for insulting the president during protests and threatening the national unity.
I like her boots.
Can't make fun of the Turkish President? Well, I guess there isn't much room for late night comedy shows there...
Quote from: KRonn on February 26, 2015, 08:00:40 AM
Can't make fun of the Turkish President? Well, I guess there isn't much room for late night comedy shows there...
They can still make fun of the american president. And of course the jews. Many laughs on turkish comedy shows.
Quote"The remarks shared by the suspect could not be considered within the terms of freedom of expression."
You cannot yell mean things about Erdogan in a crowded theatre.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/03/recep-tayyep-erdogan-turkey-food
QuoteErdogan's meals tested for poison amid security fears
Turkish president's personal doctor says 'It's usually not through bullets that prominent figures are being assassinated these days'
Every meal that goes before the Turkish president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, is rigorously tested both at home and abroad for fear of assassination, his personal doctor said.
And now a special food analysis laboratory will be built at Erdogan's controversial presidential palace to make sure all his food is safe to eat, Cevdet Erdol told the Hurriyet newspaper on Tuesday.
"It's usually not through bullets that prominent figures are being assassinated these days," Erdol said.
Currently, samples of the president's food are analysed in laboratories in both Ankara and Istanbul and during his visits abroad, he said.
Erdogan's opponents accuse him of increasing megalomania, and the authorities of setting up a cult of personality around the man who has ruled Turkey either as president or prime minister since 2003.
Erdogan's 1,150-room palace, which opened last year on the outskirts of Ankara, has been condemned by critics as an absurd extravagance that shows he is slipping further towards authoritarian rule.
Erdol said a fully equipped lab will soon be built at the grandiose complex, where every dish will be inspected by medically qualified professionals. There is also a five-member emergency team on duty at the heavily guarded palace 24 hours a day, analysing everything he eats and drink to guard against radiation, chemical materials and bacteria.
"Fortunately, we have not had any serious incidents so far," Erdol said, adding that the food was bought only from trusted sources.
Turkey's eighth president, Turgut Ozal, survived an assassination attempt in 1988 when a rightwing gunman shot him at a party congress. Family members have long believed that Ozal, who died in office in 1993 of an unknown cause, was poisoned, but a court in 2012 ruled out the possibility.
Five-time prime minister Bulent Ecevit, who died in 2006, survived nine assassination attempts, most notably in the western city of Izmir and New York, where bullets narrowly missed him.
In 2006 the former Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko died from radioactive poisoning in London, three weeks after he drank tea infused with polonium-210 at a luxury hotel.
Erdogan in January appointed Ibrahim Saracoglu, a professor of biochemistry and microbiology known for his research on the healing effects of plants, as one of his advisers.
I wonder if this is mainly another way for him to gain more power under the guise of needing to clamp down more due to these additional security threats.
Here is the question I have after reading about history.
Back in the day before there were enough advances to make scientific testing possible,many powerful men employed commoners to eat their food to ensure it wasn't poisoned.
But I've never heard of powerful men employing commoners to sleep with their women to ensure the absence of STDs. What's up with that?
Quote from: alfred russel on March 04, 2015, 12:02:21 PM
Here is the question I have after reading about history.
Back in the day before there were enough advances to make scientific testing possible,many powerful men employed commoners to eat their food to ensure it wasn't poisoned.
But I've never heard of powerful men employing commoners to sleep with their women to ensure the absence of STDs. What's up with that?
I think having commoners sleep with your women ensures the presence of STDs rather than their absence.
Quote from: alfred russel on March 04, 2015, 12:02:21 PM
Here is the question I have after reading about history.
Back in the day before there were enough advances to make scientific testing possible,many powerful men employed commoners to eat their food to ensure it wasn't poisoned.
But I've never heard of powerful men employing commoners to sleep with their women to ensure the absence of STDs. What's up with that?
Cathrine the Great apparently had an employee try out potential lovers ... ;)
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-33042284
QuoteTurkey ruling AKP 'may lose majority'
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fichef.bbci.co.uk%2Fnews%2F660%2Fmedia%2Fimages%2F83475000%2Fjpg%2F_83475144_83472598.jpg&hash=bbc0a2ba394f5e2b58ce26bd2e63adca34a0e452)
Turkey's governing AK party appears on course to lose its parliamentary majority, early projections suggest.
They also suggest the pro-Kurdish HDP is set to cross the 10% threshold, securing seats for the first time.
With 90% of the vote counted, the AKP had 42% of the vote, according to Turkish TV stations.
If confirmed, the result would end the AKP's 13-year single-party rule, and upset President Recep Tayyip Erdogan's plans to boost his office's powers.
President Erdogan, who first came to power as prime minister in 2003, has been seeking a two-thirds majority to turn Turkey into a presidential republic.
The BBC's Mark Lowen in Istanbul says Sunday's election was the biggest electoral challenge for the AKP since it came to power, with economic growth stalling.
According to the TV projections, Mr Erdogan's Justice and Development Party's share of the vote would translate into 263 seats in the 550-seat parliament, followed by the opposition Republican People's Party (CHP), the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP). The pro-Kurdish People's Democratic Party (HDP) would get 11.6% - 75 seats.
An unnamed AKP official told Reuters news agency: "We expect a minority government and early election."
Turkey's current Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu had earlier told reporters: "Whatever [the people's] will, it is a will that must be respected by everyone.''
HDP co-chair Selahattin Demirtas complained as he voted that the election campaign "was not a fair and equal race". Four people died in an explosion at a party rally last Friday.
But he added: "Hopefully we will wake up to a new and freer Turkey on 8 June."
Kemal Kilicdaroglu, chairman of the CHP, echoed Mr Demirtas and called the campaign period "unequal". He promised however to "continue to work with a sense of responsibility".The result may have ramifications beyond Turkey's borders.
The country is a vital Nato member in a volatile Middle East and a rare mix of Islam and democracy, our correspondent says.
If true, this is obviously the work of a foreign conspiracy against Turkey.
Good.
AKP getting 41%.
:yeah:
Well that is encouraging news. I guess whatever Erdogan's intentions are they will be made clear soon.
Obviously Turkey is in much better shape than Hungary :P
Quote from: Syt on June 07, 2015, 12:54:48 PM
If true, this is obviously the work of a foreign conspiracy against Turkey.
Also, if true, it means Turkey is not as bad as it seemed - the ability of the ruling party (no matter how nasty) to lose power in peaceful democratic elections means the system is working.
Quote from: Martinus on June 07, 2015, 02:23:40 PMAlso, if true, it means Turkey is not as bad as it seemed - the ability of the ruling party (no matter how nasty) to lose power in peaceful democratic elections means the system is working.
:yes:
Raz was right!
Quote from: Martinus on June 07, 2015, 02:23:40 PM
Quote from: Syt on June 07, 2015, 12:54:48 PM
If true, this is obviously the work of a foreign conspiracy against Turkey.
Also, if true, it means Turkey is not as bad as it seemed - the ability of the ruling party (no matter how nasty) to lose power in peaceful democratic elections means the system is working.
Swedish election observers was threatened and forced to leave voting stations earlier today. So only somewhat peaceful. What they had observed earlier was widespread fraud and voter intimidation. So only somewhat democratic.
Well nobody is perfect Liep.
Quote from: Valmy on June 07, 2015, 02:28:35 PM
Well nobody is perfect Liep.
I'm just trying to illustrate that "better than Hungary" might not be the best of compliments. :P
Wasn't Turkey in better shape than Hungary ever since 1300?
Quote from: Solmyr on June 07, 2015, 02:34:02 PM
Wasn't Turkey in better shape than Hungary ever since 1300?
Hungary had a good run 1699 - 1918
Quote from: Liep on June 07, 2015, 02:27:20 PM
Quote from: Martinus on June 07, 2015, 02:23:40 PM
Quote from: Syt on June 07, 2015, 12:54:48 PM
If true, this is obviously the work of a foreign conspiracy against Turkey.
Also, if true, it means Turkey is not as bad as it seemed - the ability of the ruling party (no matter how nasty) to lose power in peaceful democratic elections means the system is working.
Swedish election observers was threatened and forced to leave voting stations earlier today. So only somewhat peaceful. What they had observed earlier was widespread fraud and voter intimidation. So only somewhat democratic.
But is it more democratic than pre-WW1 USA?
Quote from: Martinus on June 07, 2015, 02:23:40 PM
Quote from: Syt on June 07, 2015, 12:54:48 PM
If true, this is obviously the work of a foreign conspiracy against Turkey.
Also, if true, it means Turkey is not as bad as it seemed - the ability of the ruling party (no matter how nasty) to lose power in peaceful democratic elections means the system is working.
They will probably still form a minority government as the opposition parties hate each other. And then call new elections in a few months...
I hear a lot of cars driving through the city honking at 10pm. I wonder if that's Turks celebrating. :hmm:
Quote from: Valmy on June 07, 2015, 02:26:01 PM
Quote from: Martinus on June 07, 2015, 02:23:40 PMAlso, if true, it means Turkey is not as bad as it seemed - the ability of the ruling party (no matter how nasty) to lose power in peaceful democratic elections means the system is working.
:yes:
Raz was right!
Imagine that.
Quote from: Valmy on June 07, 2015, 02:26:01 PM
Quote from: Martinus on June 07, 2015, 02:23:40 PMAlso, if true, it means Turkey is not as bad as it seemed - the ability of the ruling party (no matter how nasty) to lose power in peaceful democratic elections means the system is working.
:yes:
Raz was right!
Maybe premature to declare that.
Possible scenarios at this point: minority government by AKP (and possibly early elections), or a coalition of AKP and MHP (which has gained votes to reach 16%).
QuoteThe MHP used to be described as a neo-fascist party[13][16] linked to extremist and violent militias.[17] Since the 1990s it has, under the leadership of Devlet Bahçeli, gradually moderated its programme, turning from ethnic to cultural nationalism and conservatism and stressing the unitary nature of the Turkish state. Notably, it has moved from strict secularism to a more pro-Islamic stance, and has – at least in public statements – accepted the rules of parliamentary democracy. Some scholars doubt the sincerity and credibility of this turn and suspect the party of still pursuing a fascist agenda behind a more moderate and pro-democratic façade. Nevertheless, MHP's mainstream overture has strongly increased its appeal to voters and it has grown to the country's third-strongest party,[18] continuously represented in the National Assembly since 2007 with voter shares well above the 10% threshold.
Quote from: Syt on June 08, 2015, 12:22:53 AM
Possible scenarios at this point: minority government by AKP (and possibly early elections), or a coalition of AKP and MHP (which has gained votes to reach 16%).
QuoteThe MHP used to be described as a neo-fascist party[13][16] linked to extremist and violent militias.[17] Since the 1990s it has, under the leadership of Devlet Bahçeli, gradually moderated its programme, turning from ethnic to cultural nationalism and conservatism and stressing the unitary nature of the Turkish state. Notably, it has moved from strict secularism to a more pro-Islamic stance, and has – at least in public statements – accepted the rules of parliamentary democracy. Some scholars doubt the sincerity and credibility of this turn and suspect the party of still pursuing a fascist agenda behind a more moderate and pro-democratic façade. Nevertheless, MHP's mainstream overture has strongly increased its appeal to voters and it has grown to the country's third-strongest party,[18] continuously represented in the National Assembly since 2007 with voter shares well above the 10% threshold.
Seems on par with the rest of that part of Europe.
Quote from: Martinus on June 07, 2015, 02:23:40 PM
Quote from: Syt on June 07, 2015, 12:54:48 PM
If true, this is obviously the work of a foreign conspiracy against Turkey.
Also, if true, it means Turkey is not as bad as it seemed - the ability of the ruling party (no matter how nasty) to lose power in peaceful democratic elections means the system is working.
The other great development is secular Turks crossing over to vote for a traditional ethnic Kurdish party.
Surprisingly soft tones from Erdogan:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/08/turkey-may-face-fresh-poll-as-recep-tayyip-erdogan-is-snubbed-by-voters
QuoteErdoğan concedes no party has mandate after shock Turkish vote
President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan of Turkey has said the country is entering an uncertain period of coalition government after his 13-year-old reign of solid majorities for the Justice and Development party (AKP) was ended by a stunning voter backlash against his increasingly authoritarian rule.
"Our nation's opinion is above everything else," Erdoğan said in his first public reaction to the parliamentary elections on Sunday that represented a watershed by shaving nearly 10 points from the governing party and putting a liberal pro-Kurdish party in parliament in Ankara for the first time.
Erdoğan's conciliatory tone contrasted sharply with the highly polarising language he used during the campaign.
He said no party had won a mandate to govern alone and urged all political parties to work towards preserving an environment of confidence and stability in the country.
Coalition talks will dominate the coming weeks in Turkey after voters snubbed the president's plans to change the constitution and extend his grip on power, delivering the biggest blow to the AKP since it swept to power in 2002.
The election result wrecked Erdoğan's ambition of rewriting the constitution to establish himself as an all-powerful executive president, while the country's large Kurdish minority has been granted its biggest voice ever in national politics.
"I believe the results, which do not give the opportunity to any party to form a single-party government, will be assessed healthily and realistically by every party."
The election breakthrough for the leftist HDP, a new party largely representing the Kurds but also encompassing liberals nationally, was greeted with wild celebrations in the Kurdish-majority city of Diyarbakir in south-eastern Turkey. Cars paraded through the city with drivers honking and people hanging out from windows making 'V' signs as occasional gunshots were fired into the air.
The results will give the Kurds – who, with 20% of Turkey's population, are the country's biggest minority – true representation in parliament. The HDP surpassed the steep 10% threshold for entering parliament to take more than 12% of the vote and around 80 seats in the 550-strong chamber. The party's result also denied Erdoğan's AKP its majority.
The 10% hurdle, dating from the military-authored constitution of 1980, had been intended in part to diminish Kurdish representation in the parliament.
Sunday's vote was the first time in four general elections to see a fall in support for Erdoğan. While the AKP comfortably managed to secure the biggest portion of the vote, its 41% share of seats represents a sharp drop from its performance the 2011 elections, when it won nearly half the national vote. For the first time since 2002, the AKP will need to form a coalition government or call new elections.
It remains unclear who will be a likely partner for the AKP after the most likely candidate, the rightwing Nationalist Movement party (MHP) ruled out the possibility of a coalition.
According to the state-run Anadolu agency, the party leader, Devlet Bahceli, said the party was "ready to be a main opposition party" against an AKP-led coalition or minority government during a speech from party headquarters in Ankara early on Monday.
"Nobody has a right to drag Turkey into [AKP] minority and some circles' scenarios," said Bahceli. "A snap election will happen whenever it will happen." He welcomed the election results, with his party gaining 31 seats in parliament.
Selahattin Demirtas, co-chair of the leftist HDP, and surprise star of this election, also dismissed any possibility of a coalition with the AKP.
"We will not form a coalition with the AKP. We stand behind our words. We will be in parliament as a strong opposition," Demirtas said in a press conference in Istanbul on Sunday night. He added that the election results had clearly put an end to all plans of an executive presidency.
"As of this moment, the debate on the presidency, the debate about dictatorship, has come to an end in Turkey. Turkey has returned from the edge of a cliff," he said.
Pro-government newspapers on Monday morning were already calling for early elections. "The ballot box revealed the ballot box", read the headline of the conservateive daily Yeni Safak.
Burhan Kuzu, the AK party deputy and head of the parliamentary constitution commission, said snap elections were inevitable. "No government will emerge from this scenario. Not even a coalition," he told BBC Türkçe. "Early elections look inevitable." He added that the election results reflected the weakness of the parliamentary system.
"The parliamentary system is a curse for the whole world. In Turkey only majority governments ever worked, coalitions always destroyed it." He said that the only solution would be an executive presidency.
New elections could be called any time in the next 45 days.
Official results based on 99.9% of votes counted put the AKP in the lead, followed by the Republican People's party (CHP) on 25%, the MHP on 16.5% and the HDP in fourth place with 13%. Turnout was 86%. According to official projections, the AKP will have 258 seats in the 550-seat parliament, CHP 132, MHP 81 and HDP 79.
The AKP has dominated Turkish politics since it first came to power in 2002, but has suffered from a dip in economic growth and controversy over Erdoğan's perceived authoritarian tendencies.
The results wreck Erdoğan's dream of agreeing a new constitution to switch Turkey from a parliamentary to a presidential system that he had made a fundamental issue in the campaign. Such a change would have required a two-thirds majority in the parliament.
Speaking from the balcony of AKP headquarters in Ankara – the traditional venue for the party's victory speeches – the prime minister and party leader, Ahmet Davutoglu, sought to put a brave face on the results. "The winner of the election is again the AKP, there's no doubt," he said, pledging to ensure Turkey's stability. But he added: "Our people's decision is final. It's above everything and we will act in line with it."
But the atmosphere outside the AKP's headquarters was muted. Several hundred supporters chanted for Erdoğan, the party's founder, but there was little sign of the huge crowds that gathered after past election victories.
Erdogan's divide-and-rule strategy of rallying his religious-conservative base has led to increasing polarisation in Turkey, and in some cases to violence. Erdoğan had repeatedly lashed out at the HDP and its charismatic leader Demirtaş before the elections.
The HDP ran on a platform defending the rights of ethnic minorities, women, and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people - forming an electoral coalition between the Kurdish minority in Turkey's south-east and liberals in Istanbul and elsewhere.
"This result shows that this country has had enough. Enough of Erdoğan and his anger," said Seyran Demir, a 47-year-old who was among the thousands who gathered in the streets around the HDP's provincial headquarters in Diyarbakir. "I am so full of joy that I can't speak properly."
"It is a carnival night," said 47-year-old Huseyin Durmaz, a Kurd. "We no longer trust the AKP," he said.
Another record was set by the number of women MPs set to take a seat in parliament after an unofficial tally estimated a total of 96 female parliamentarians securing a place in the Turkish grand national assembly – a record high and up from 79 in 2011.
I read something else on this earlier. I guess it was quite a shocker to Erdogan's AKP party. IMO it's good as it puts a serious hold on his taking of even more power in the country.
Quote from: KRonn on June 08, 2015, 09:52:27 AM
I read something else on this earlier. I guess it was quite a shocker to Erdogan's AKP party. IMO it's good as it puts a serious hold on his taking of even more power in the country.
Yes it will mean more vile and forceful populism backed by the whole state apparatus firmly controlled by Erdogan. I find the situation vaguely similar to when recently Orban lost his 2/3rd majority and their popularity plumetted in general. That's how they stopped the fall, and there are two practical differences between Orban and Erdogan: islamism, and Erdogan is less unhealthy for the economy.
Quote from: Tamas on June 08, 2015, 11:41:04 AM
Quote from: KRonn on June 08, 2015, 09:52:27 AM
I read something else on this earlier. I guess it was quite a shocker to Erdogan's AKP party. IMO it's good as it puts a serious hold on his taking of even more power in the country.
Yes it will mean more vile and forceful populism backed by the whole state apparatus firmly controlled by Erdogan. I find the situation vaguely similar to when recently Orban lost his 2/3rd majority and their popularity plumetted in general. That's how they stopped the fall, and there are two practical differences between Orban and Erdogan: islamism, and Erdogan is less unhealthy for the economy.
:huh: While his economics are vile, they are your sort of vile. Liberalization and deregulation.
I'm shocked, shocked that Edrogan's arming Islamists!
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/21/us-mideast-crisis-turkey-arms-idUSKBN0O61L220150521
Quote
Exclusive: Turkish intelligence helped ship arms to Syrian Islamist rebel areas
ADANA, Turkey | By Humeyra Pamuk and Nick Tattersall
Turkey's state intelligence agency helped deliver arms to parts of Syria under Islamist rebel control during late 2013 and early 2014, according to a prosecutor and court testimony from gendarmerie officers seen by Reuters.
The witness testimony contradicts Turkey's denials that it sent arms to Syrian rebels and, by extension, contributed to the rise of Islamic State, now a major concern for the NATO member.
Syria and some of Turkey's Western allies say Turkey, in its haste to see President Bashar al-Assad toppled, let fighters and arms over the border, some of whom went on to join the Islamic State militant group which has carved a self-declared caliphate out of parts of Syria and Iraq.
Ankara has denied arming Syria's rebels or assisting hardline Islamists. Diplomats and Turkish officials say it has in recent months imposed tighter controls on its borders.
Testimony from gendarmerie officers in court documents reviewed by Reuters allege that rocket parts, ammunition and semi-finished mortar shells were carried in trucks accompanied by state intelligence agency (MIT) officials more than a year ago to parts of Syria under Islamist control.
Four trucks were searched in the southern province of Adana in raids by police and gendarmerie, one in November 2013 and the three others in January 2014, on the orders of prosecutors acting on tip-offs that they were carrying weapons, according to testimony from the prosecutors, who now themselves face trial.
While the first truck was seized, the three others were allowed to continue their journey after MIT officials accompanying the cargo threatened police and physically resisted the search, according to the testimony and prosecutor's report.
President Tayyip Erdogan has said the three trucks stopped on Jan. 19 belonged to MIT and were carrying aid.
"Our investigation has shown that some state officials have helped these people deliver the shipments," prosecutor Ozcan Sisman, who ordered the search of the first truck on Nov. 7 2013 after a tip-off that it was carrying weapons illegally, told Reuters in a interview on May 4 in Adana.
Both Sisman and Aziz Takci, another Adana prosecutor who ordered three trucks to be searched on Jan. 19 2014, have since been detained on the orders of state prosecutors and face provisional charges, pending a full indictment, of carrying out an illegal search.
The request for Sisman's arrest, issued by the Supreme Board of Judges and Prosecutors (HSYK) and also seen by Reuters, accuses him of revealing state secrets and tarnishing the government by portraying it as aiding terrorist groups.
Sisman and Takci deny the charges.
"It is not possible to explain this process, which has become a total massacre of the law," Alp Deger Tanriverdi, a lawyer representing both Takci and Sisman, told Reuters.
"Something that is a crime cannot possibly be a state secret."
More than 30 gendarmerie officers involved in the Jan. 1 attempted search and the events of Jan. 19 also face charges such as military espionage and attempting to overthrow the government, according to an April 2015 Istanbul court document.
An official in Erdogan's office said Erdogan had made his position clear on the issue. Several government officials contacted by Reuters declined to comment further. MIT officials could not immediately be reached.
"I want to reiterate our official line here, which has been stated over and over again ever since this crisis started by our prime minister, president and foreign minister, that Turkey has never sent weapons to any group in Syria," Erdogan's spokesman Ibrahim Kalin said on Wednesday at an event in Washington.
Erdogan has said prosecutors had no authority to search MIT vehicles and were part of what he calls a "parallel state" run by his political enemies and bent on discrediting the government.
"Who were those who tried to stop MIT trucks in Adana while we were trying to send humanitarian aid to Turkmens?," Erdogan said in a television interview last August.
"Parallel judiciary and parallel security ... The prosecutor hops onto the truck and carries out a search. You can't search an MIT truck, you have no authority."
'TARNISHING THE GOVERNMENT'
One of the truck drivers, Murat Kislakci, was quoted as saying the cargo he carried on Jan. 19 was loaded from a foreign plane at Ankara airport and that he had carried similar shipments before. Reuters was unable to contact Kislakci.
Witness testimony seen by Reuters from a gendarme involved in a Jan. 1, 2014 attempt to search another truck said MIT officials had talked about weapons shipments to Syrian rebels from depots on the border. Reuters was unable to confirm this.
At the time of the searches, the Syrian side of the border in Hatay province, which neighbors Adana, was controlled by hardline Islamist rebel group Ahrar al-Sham.
The Salafist group included commanders such as Abu Khaled al-Soury, also known as Abu Omair al-Shamy, who fought alongside al Qaeda founder Osama bin Laden and was close to its current chief Ayman al-Zawahiri. Al-Soury was killed in by a suicide attack in Syrian city of Aleppo in February 2014.
A court ruling calling for the arrest of three people in connection with the truck stopped in November 2013 said it was loaded with metal pipes manufactured in the Turkish city of Konya which were identified as semi-finished parts of mortars.
The document also cites truck driver Lutfi Karakaya as saying he had twice carried the same shipment and delivered it to a field around 200 meters beyond a military outpost in Reyhanli, a stone's throw from Syria.
The court order for Karakaya's arrest, seen by Reuters, cited a police investigation which said that the weapons parts seized that day were destined for "a camp used by the al Qaeda terrorist organization on the Syrian border".
Reuters was unable to interview Karakaya or to independently confirm the final intended destination of the cargo.
Sisman said it was a tip-off from the police that prompted him to order the thwarted search on Jan. 1, 2014.
"I did not want to prevent its passage if it belonged to MIT and carried aid but we had a tip off saying this truck was carrying weapons. We were obliged to investigate," he said.
(Additional reporting by Ercan Gurses in Ankara; Editing by Nick Tattersall and Anna Willard)
So, there's still no new government in Turkey. Erdogan has scheduled new elections for November 1st.
What are people's thoughts on Turkiye ?
NB Couldn't find the 'current' most used thread on Turkey as there are a lot produced from the search function.
As a podcaster put it yesterday: there is nobody with a bigger permanent erection these days than Erdogan, thanks to he finds himself in the spotlight mediating the war in Ukraine.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 08, 2015, 12:49:23 PMQuote from: Tamas on June 08, 2015, 11:41:04 AMQuote from: KRonn on June 08, 2015, 09:52:27 AMI read something else on this earlier. I guess it was quite a shocker to Erdogan's AKP party. IMO it's good as it puts a serious hold on his taking of even more power in the country.
Yes it will mean more vile and forceful populism backed by the whole state apparatus firmly controlled by Erdogan. I find the situation vaguely similar to when recently Orban lost his 2/3rd majority and their popularity plumetted in general. That's how they stopped the fall, and there are two practical differences between Orban and Erdogan: islamism, and Erdogan is less unhealthy for the economy.
:huh: While his economics are vile, they are your sort of vile. Liberalization and deregulation.
Cutting interest rates to zero because of Islamic Law isn't very liberal
Quote from: Tamas on September 26, 2022, 06:41:43 AMAs a podcaster put it yesterday: there is nobody with a bigger permanent erection these days than Erdogan, thanks to he finds himself in the spotlight mediating the war in Ukraine.
jeez, everything in that country is suffering inflation...
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on September 26, 2022, 01:25:38 PMQuote from: Tamas on September 26, 2022, 06:41:43 AMAs a podcaster put it yesterday: there is nobody with a bigger permanent erection these days than Erdogan, thanks to he finds himself in the spotlight mediating the war in Ukraine.
jeez, everything in that country is suffering inflation...
Hi was commenting on Erdogan's supposed self-image, not reality.
Quote from: Tamas on September 26, 2022, 02:04:12 PMQuote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on September 26, 2022, 01:25:38 PMQuote from: Tamas on September 26, 2022, 06:41:43 AMAs a podcaster put it yesterday: there is nobody with a bigger permanent erection these days than Erdogan, thanks to he finds himself in the spotlight mediating the war in Ukraine.
jeez, everything in that country is suffering inflation...
Hi was commenting on Erdogan's supposed self-image, not reality.
so was I, so was I... heh.
QuoteIstanbul mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu sentenced to jail over 'fools' insult
Mayor expected to appeal against ruling that is seen as an effort to sideline an Erdoğan rival
A Turkish court has sentenced Istanbul's mayor to more than two years in prison and banned him from politics in a move that his supporters described as a politically motivated effort to sideline a high-profile rival of the president, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.
Ekrem İmamoğlu was sentenced to two years, seven months and 15 days in prison for calling members of Turkey's supreme election council "fools" in a press release three years ago.
İmamoğlu did not attend any trial hearings or the sentencing, and is expected to appeal against the ruling. The appeal would allow him to stay in office in the meantime, but he would remain weighed down by court hearings for up to a year and a half as the country heads towards a general election.
The verdict represents the latest step in a crackdown on key figures from the Republican People's party (CHP), Erdoğan's main challenger in the vote, which is expected within six months. Earlier this year, Canan Kaftancıoğlu, the head of the CHP's Istanbul branch, was banned from politics and given a suspended five-year prison sentence on charges of insulting the Republic of Turkey and Erdoğan in tweets accusing him of theft.
In January a court is due to decide whether to ban the majority-Kurdish People's Democratic party (HDP) from politics.
"The will of 16 million Istanbulites is on trial," the mayor's office declared shortly before İmamoğlu's sentencing. "They are seeking to deprive the mayor of Istanbul of his political rights."
Afterwards, İmamoğlu addressed supporters who had gathered in front of the town hall building. "This decision is a disgrace for the Turkish judiciary," he said. "It's the firmest expression of the fact that the judiciary has been transformed into an instrument to punish dissidents. It's proof that the rulers of this country have no aim to bring justice and democracy to the country."
He added: "We will not bow down to this corruption. These kinds of games won't get in my way – I won't be dismayed or give up."
İmamoğlu's supporters chanted "one day the AKP [Erdoğan's Justice and Development party] will answer to the people" and "rights, law, justice" as they waved Turkish flags.
"I see it as stealing the votes that millions of people gave of their own free will," said Türkiye Simge Goorany, 27, an architect. "This does not end here. We will definitely take to the streets, and we'll make our voices heard online. This is nothing but a pre-election campaign for the AKP to lose power."
Şehriban Kaynak said: "We are living in a country where there is no law and justice."
İmamoğlu rode to power on a wave of support in 2019, winning twice, as the original result was annulled by the election council after AKP complaints. In a press release that year, İmamoğlu said: "When we consider what happened back then, the ones who cancelled the March 31 election are fools." This was the comment that prompted the lawsuit against him.
İmamoğlu's victory in 2019 gave the CHP control of Turkey's largest city, which makes up 40% of the country's GDP, in a symbolic blow to Erdoğan, who formerly held the same position before he was removed for office and jailed for four months for inciting religious hatred.
AKP officials stonewalled İmamoğlu's mayorship, opposing his efforts to make major changes and starting competing projects to undermine his programme. "All our decisions are being blocked," İmamoğlu told the Guardian in an interview last May.
The mayor's supporters gathered in front of the town hall hoped that his ban from politics might eventually prove counterproductive, aiding İmamoğlu's rise as it did Erdoğan's.
"This is an injustice – and we want justice," said Nurşen Çuhacı, 64, another İmamoğlu supporter. "I feel sorry for this decision, but I think it could give him a boost in politics."