|
|
Post by Lord Twaddleford on Apr 17, 2017 12:17:17 GMT
"So this is how Liberty dies, to thunderous applause..." You have just quoted the worst film of all time. The only punishment suitable for this crime is death. I dunno, it ain't great but I can certainly think of worse feature films out there...  |
|
mboy
Liberal
Listen. Think. Speak.
Posts: 23,706
|
Post by mboy on Apr 17, 2017 12:33:09 GMT
So I ask again. Who gets to decide that because they dont like the democratic result, it is OK to by pass it by force? The issue here is not if the decision is wise. The issue is, is it legitimate? Erdogan stepped way outside the democratic sphere when he threw 100,000 people in jail on spurious charges, and shut down the independent media. The comparison with 1934 Germany is important, and should be learned from. Turkey is now an elective dictatorship, and it's silly to pretend otherwise. |
|
mboy
Liberal
Listen. Think. Speak.
Posts: 23,706
|
Post by mboy on Apr 17, 2017 12:33:54 GMT
You have just quoted the worst film of all time. The only punishment suitable for this crime is death. I dunno, it ain't great but I can certainly think of worse feature films out there... It's not even the worse film in its own trilogy! |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Apr 17, 2017 12:34:58 GMT
You have just quoted the worst film of all time. The only punishment suitable for this crime is death. I dunno, it ain't great but I can certainly think of worse feature films out there... I am one of the few who really has 'never seen Star Wars'. Any of them |
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Apr 17, 2017 15:28:15 GMT
I don't think it is remotely controversial to suggest that a referendum that takes place amid a state of near war between the government and a significant minority of the population, and thus suppression of that minority's vote, is entirely lacking in democratic legitimacy. I have highlighted the bits that are debateable. 1. You're right, it is controversial - in Turkey. Publicly questioning the state's "democratic" credentials may be illegal there in a few years' time. 2. There were over 1000 violent deaths related to the Kurdish-Turkish conflict in Turkey last year. How is the country not in a state of near war? 3. Kurds make up about 18% of Turkey's population. If that's not significant, then the entire foreign-born population of Britain must be of no consequence. 4. If one ignored the gradual destruction of the free Turkish press by the government, the conflict in Kurdish-majority areas, the fact that police blocked the EU delegation's observation of the election multiple times, the killing of three people outside a polling station on election day, and the alleged vote rigging, I suppose you could argue this election had an element of democratic legitimacy. These things shouldn't be ignored, however. |
|
Sibboleth
Labour
'Sit on my finger, sing in my ear, O littleblood.'
Posts: 16,028
|
Post by Sibboleth on Apr 17, 2017 16:19:06 GMT
Shame there is no Ataturk around today to put in him in his place... How the hell would that help when it is precisely his legacy of personalised modernist authoritarian rule that has led to the generally miserable and often quite bloody history of modern Turkey? At least Erdogan hasn't indulged in ethnic cleansing (but there's still time, I guess). The thing about Erdogan is that while in some respects he aims to repudiate the Ataturk legacy, in other respects he is very much his heir. |
|
Sibboleth
Labour
'Sit on my finger, sing in my ear, O littleblood.'
Posts: 16,028
|
Post by Sibboleth on Apr 17, 2017 16:23:08 GMT
Erdogan did better with ex pats winning 59.2% to 40.8% overseas. I would be careful about reading too much into this: most Turkish citizens abroad did not vote. Of course those that voted in this country overwhelmingly voted No, for obvious reasons. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2017 16:27:58 GMT
Erdogan did better with ex pats winning 59.2% to 40.8% overseas. I would be careful about reading too much into this: most Turkish citizens abroad did not vote. Of course those that voted in this country overwhelmingly voted No, for obvious reasons. Which are? |
|
Sibboleth
Labour
'Sit on my finger, sing in my ear, O littleblood.'
Posts: 16,028
|
Post by Sibboleth on Apr 17, 2017 16:43:48 GMT
I would be careful about reading too much into this: most Turkish citizens abroad did not vote. Of course those that voted in this country overwhelmingly voted No, for obvious reasons. Which are? A high proportion of Turkish citizens living in the UK are Kurds. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2017 16:51:37 GMT
Shame there is no Ataturk around today to put in him in his place... How the hell would that help when it is precisely his legacy of personalised modernist authoritarian rule that has led to the generally miserable and often quite bloody history of modern Turkey? At least Erdogan hasn't indulged in ethnic cleansing (but there's still time, I guess). The thing about Erdogan is that while in some respects he aims to repudiate the Ataturk legacy, in other respects he is very much his heir. I disagree you confuse two different strands of Ataturk's policies. Firstly Ataturk was unequivocally a secularist, Erdogan is not, quite the contrary. Secondly although there was no established democracy by the time Ataturk died it wasn't for want of trying. Erdogan on the other hand already has a relatively mature democratic system which he is now busy dismantling with his attacks on the media and political opponents. So in fact the "Sultan" is heir only to the pre-1909 Ottoman Sultans. Erdogan hasn't committed genocide as you rightly point out, but it is only a matter of time before serious conflict breaks out in Eastern Turkey especially if the Kurds in Northern Iraq get independence - which is increasingly likely.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2017 16:57:12 GMT
A high proportion of Turkish citizens living in the UK are Kurds. Not in North London they aren't but ironically you do have a lot of Greek and Turkish Cypriots living near to each other there. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2017 16:57:38 GMT
A high proportion of Turkish citizens living in the UK are Kurds. Denmark has a 50/50 Kurds/Turks distribution among resident Turkish citizens they still voted 60% "Yes". |
|
Sibboleth
Labour
'Sit on my finger, sing in my ear, O littleblood.'
Posts: 16,028
|
Post by Sibboleth on Apr 17, 2017 17:01:38 GMT
Secondly although there was no established democracy by the time Ataturk died it wasn't for want of trying. What? Nonsense: Ataturk was a dictator and the only legal political party was the CHP. This is also untrue: Turkey before the AKP landslide in 2002 was a country in which there were frequent elections and parliamentary politics but not really democracy. The military pulled the strings and decided who could and could not rule. More than anything it is Erdogan's subsequent conflict with the hated old establishment - and the fact that he destroyed them - that legitimises his rule to his supporters. |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Apr 17, 2017 17:03:22 GMT
A high proportion of Turkish citizens living in the UK are Kurds. Not in North London they aren't but ironically you do have a lot of Greek and Turkish Cypriots living near to each other there. It depends on what you consider a "high proportion" but I can assure you that there are a lot of Kurds round here. The Greek and Turkish cypriots do indeed live cheek by jowl here although the Greek cypriots in particular have moved further north over the last thirty years... |
|
Sibboleth
Labour
'Sit on my finger, sing in my ear, O littleblood.'
Posts: 16,028
|
Post by Sibboleth on Apr 17, 2017 17:07:22 GMT
A high proportion of Turkish citizens living in the UK are Kurds. Denmark has a 50/50 Kurds/Turks distribution among resident Turkish citizens they still voted 60% "Yes". I would suggest, then, that that's the real mystery  |
|
cogload
Lib Dem
I jumped in the river and what did I see...
Posts: 9,141
|
Post by cogload on Apr 17, 2017 17:18:55 GMT
Erdogan provided what the Kemalists failed to do. He and the AKP acknowledged the Conservative elements of Turkish society which had been suppressed (headscarf ban); the AKP did initially keep their word in regards to schooling, higher education and health and the economy improved tremendously.
It is all beginning to fall apart which is one reason for the reversion to Turkish strongman political type. The second engineered election when to the AKP's horror they lost their majority and consequent suppression of alternative sources of power.
It is interesting why the overseas Turks in Germany, Austria, Denmark and France voted overwhelmingly for a constitution which shits over pluralism. Perhaps there is a enclave style herd mentality?
I am pleased to see that the TRNC Turks voted No. Could make things interesting in regards to one scenario, that Turkey simply annexes the North.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2017 17:28:46 GMT
Secondly although there was no established democracy by the time Ataturk died it wasn't for want of trying. What? Nonsense: Ataturk was a dictator and the only legal political party was the CHP. This is also untrue: Turkey before the AKP landslide in 2002 was a country in which there were frequent elections and parliamentary politics but not really democracy. The military pulled the strings and decided who could and could not rule. More than anything it is Erdogan's subsequent conflict with the hated old establishment - and the fact that he destroyed them - that legitimises his rule to his supporters. "..there was no established democracy by the time Ataturk died.." You clearly didn't read what I said to closely. He did envisage a multi-party democracy based on secular principles but traditional conservative opinion was still too strong and risked stopping his reforms. Understandably he chose modernisation as his priority. His successor Ismet Inonu was able to begin the process of democratisation.
Re the Military in Turkish politics. I wouldn't rule out the return of the military at some point...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2017 17:32:53 GMT
Atatürk was a very successful authoritarian and his regime inspired European fascists (and was later inspired by them). The early Nazi movement greatly admired him.
"The recently published "Atatürk in the Nazi Imagination" (The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press), chronicles how the German National Socialists developed an infatuation with Mustafa Kemal early on, from the moment when he rebelled against the Ottoman sultan and against the peace treaty that had been imposed on the Ottoman state after the First World War.
Atatürk’s revolution fascinated the German nationalists and far right in the early Weimar years like no other international topic. Newspapers repeatedly called for the application of “Turkish lessons” to Germany. The National Socialists “were strongly motivated by the Turkish War of Independence in their endeavors to “liberate” Germany,” writes Ihrig. In his defense speech in 1924, when Hitler stood trial for his failed putsch in Munich the year before, he legitimized his action by referring to Mustafa Kemal’s assumption of power in Ankara in 1920; Hitler stated that Mustafa Kemal had carried out the most perfect of the two revolutions, the other being Mussolini’s in 1922."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2017 17:45:26 GMT
Denmark has a 50/50 Kurds/Turks distribution among resident Turkish citizens they still voted 60% "Yes". I would suggest, then, that that's the real mystery Not really, its a matter of turnout. I think a number of the continental countries that had a high "Yes" votes have substantial Kurdish populations, so there must be other factors at work. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2017 18:14:56 GMT
Atatürk was a very successful authoritarian and his regime inspired European fascists (and was later inspired by them). The early Nazi movement greatly admired him. "The recently published "Atatürk in the Nazi Imagination" (The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press), chronicles how the German National Socialists developed an infatuation with Mustafa Kemal early on, from the moment when he rebelled against the Ottoman sultan and against the peace treaty that had been imposed on the Ottoman state after the First World War.
Atatürk’s revolution fascinated the German nationalists and far right in the early Weimar years like no other international topic. Newspapers repeatedly called for the application of “Turkish lessons” to Germany. The National Socialists “were strongly motivated by the Turkish War of Independence in their endeavors to “liberate” Germany,” writes Ihrig. In his defense speech in 1924, when Hitler stood trial for his failed putsch in Munich the year before, he legitimized his action by referring to Mustafa Kemal’s assumption of power in Ankara in 1920; Hitler stated that Mustafa Kemal had carried out the most perfect of the two revolutions, the other being Mussolini’s in 1922."Ataturk's leadership of Turkey was nowhere near anything like the Nazi and Fascist regimes. I doubt Uncle Adolf would have been impressed by Ataturk's treatment of the Jews either. This is just another example of comparing everything to the Nazis which lets face it is not a great way to start a serious debate. On the other hand if you were comparing Sultan Erdogan's policies to Nazi ones you would begin to have a point.. |
|
