Its not just Erdogan. People of Turkey seem to be supporters of this path. Although its very sad.
I wonder if we'd be as supportive of the US military taking over, in the interests of National Security if say, Trump, won the election and withdrew from Europe and East Asia? Or if Scotland voted to secede from the UK with the consent of the Commons, and the British Army decided that its duty was to protect the Union, and overthrow an elected government?
There is no excuse for human rights abuses, but if the majority of Turks believe they've been chafing under Kemalism for 90 years, and want to try something different, what right do we have to presume to dictate to them?
In any case, I fear this is all going to be moot. The commentariat is starting to make noises about the Kremlin supporting all manner of extremist candidates and positions in the West, including Brexit, Marine Le Pen, and Trump himself. Putin may have found the soft underbelly of Western democracy: money. I hope this isn't the case as I'll be as much a victim as anyone; but if it is, it will be the first bitter taste of the foreign meddling and sense of imperious entitlement we've been demonstrating for centuries.
Democracy is not simply the rule of majority. There are certain fundamental aspects of democracy that are sacrilege and can not be broken down even if 99/100 citizens want it.
This has may have led to a perception from Americans that constitutions ought to be difficult to amend by their nature, and that is an essential feature of republicanism, since the US Constitution is practically set in stone-hence the immense power of the US Supreme Court justices. In fact, most countries do make it considerably easier to change their constitutions (with a straightforward super-majority, in most cases), and to adapt to the needs of the people. The idea of an unbreakable and sacred tyranny of people who are long dead (The Founders) is something unique to the US, among constitutional democracies.The arguments about things being needing to be set in stone confuse cause and effect.
*http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_ch...
Most systems route around the problem by requiring "supermajorities", or majorities with different qualifications, to amend the most criticals bits (constitutions and the likes) or even to progress regular legislation in some cases ("filibustering"). But the problem is still there. If representatives of a constitutional democracy voted to transform it into an absolutist hereditary monarchy, following all necessary constitutional rules, would that be legitimate?
What we often take for granted, in constitutional sciences, is a set of rules that is often less than 100 years old, and which was achieved with much bloodshed. We risk re-learning painful lessons.
There have been lots of amendments to the US constitution, and I expect if a solid majority of people wanted something changed, it would not be hard to pass another. This could easily happen if one major party strongly supported something and the other party was merely split.
But in recent decades it has been easier to change the constitution by the back door through getting judgest to give creative interpretations.
Yes, it is: it's the rule of the demos — the mob.
> There are certain fundamental aspects of democracy that are sacrilege and can not be broken down even if 99/100 citizens want it.
Those are the fundamental aspects of a republic, not of a democracy.
I blame Woodrow Wilson and all his nonsense about making the world safe for democracy. I don't actually care about whether I live in a democracy or not: I want to live in a republic, where the fundamental liberties of even the smallest minorities are secured from even the great howling mob.
I was indeed referring to a republic where majority of modern democracies operate. I assumed given the context of the discussion this was obvious. Turns out, that it is not.
I don't know what changed in Turkey but it now seems that his support has grown not only outside the country but also within and he seems to be hellbent on exploiting religion to gain political support. I don't know whether he actually holds fundamentalist views himself but he certainly knows how to use them to his advantage.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headscarf_controversy_in_Turke...
At a conference in 1998, Erdogan quoted from an Islamic poem: "Democracy is just the train we board to reach our destination. The mosques are our barracks, the minarets our bayonets, the cupolas our helmets and the faithful our soldiers."
Not so much fundamentalists fleeing from secularism, but people emigrating from the poorest backwater parts of the country, where, coincidence or not, both religious traditions and AKP are much stronger than in well-educated urban regions.
Wanting to practice your religion in it's most basic form makes one a fundamentalist?
He does, actually. Google what he said about women.
It's fairly safe to say that Atatürk's ideals have always been in strong conflict with the will of a certain part of the demographic (e.g. fundamentalists) as well as people from many of the neighboring countries.
Consider the controversies in France and other European countries surrounding (proposed) bans on headscarfs and burkas -- then consider that headscarfs have been banned in Turkish universities for decades (though this ban was not always extended to students).
It's entirely possible to democratically elect a government that reaches majority support while harming the entire nation and the well-being of future generations. This is why certain laws are treated as immutable in most republics -- no matter how much the people want to change it.
I.e. the only people on the streets where those against the coup. We do not know how many of the majority, who didn't take to the streets where for or against its success.
A doubt all of them are. Just as with Brexit, popular opinion might be divided.
Democracy is playing by the rules, not changing these rules each few years as you see fit, even while quoting "popular support" (but not holding any referendums, definitely).
Why does he have to be pleasing to you?
Why do you support hillary.. she killed millions.. Why do you support obama... yest 320 and today 124 (in idp school in syria) dead becasue of him
Why do you support any damn politican in the west? All their pockets and morals are stained.
They compare no where close to Erdogan. But your media has him hating with all kind of funny things.
Anyways, You should be ashamed about the ban of headscarfs .. while claiming the "freedom"-superiority.
Instead you are giving it an example for the "democracy". Guess we should re-define democracy as "bigotcracy"
Erdogan jails journalists who don't like him, and has committed a purge of police, judges and teachers who he disagrees with.
If President Obama dissolved police departments, school districts and judgeships on a wide scale, there would be mass protests or a civil war. We expect freedom of speech and freedom of thought, unlike many in Turkey, it seems.
edit: I'd like to leave this here to show what he has done since the "coup". https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/4tq4sd/all_turki...
Is he trying to force Germany to punish a comedian?
Is he trying to reintroduce death penalty?
Has he purged more than 2000 judges? Is it reasonable to think he has verified that all of them were bad judges during the two-three last days?
- PKK is killing your soldiers what do you do? This has nothing to do with IS.
- Ok, he has a temper and does not have a good sense of humor but please, did you find "that" poem funny?
- Oh come on. You know it was not about being bad judges.
Though yes, reintroduction of death penalty is a very bad idea. Also things are being done too hastily. All allegations are need to be verified.
The poem was just saying "THIS is what an actual insult looks like".
In light of the recent events though it appears that goats have been insulted in the poem, not Erdogan.
Saying Erdogan has sex with goats isn't funny. It's crude and it's even potentially racist (considering that sounds more like an ethnic slur than a personal insult). But that was the entire point. The poem actually went out of its way to be so appallingly insulting to drive this point home.
I don't think the performance was particularly good and I think the same point could have been made in a more tasteful way, but it should be protected as satire and I hope the German courts will rule accordingly (as many lawyers are predicting).
The entire point of the performance was a reaction to the ridiculous complaints about the earlier satirical song about Erdogan (which btw was almost entirely factual and only "insulting" because it presented Erdogan unfavourably and ridiculed his eccentricity and blatantly autocratic behaviour). It didn't set out to insult Erdogan, it was explicitly phrased as "That wasn't an insult that is illegal under German law. The following is what an insult that would be illegal under German law would look like".
Taking the poem in isolation is intellectually lazy and dishonest. It's like showcasing a replica of Michelangelo's David's penis and saying David is obscene because it's entirely about genitalia.
solid reasoning behind pursuing a criminal conviction to be sure.
But no, I did not find that poem funny, but the fact that he hasn't got a sense of humour, that turned out to be a bit funny.