Comment by _delirium | Hacker News Reader

Comment by _delirium | Hacker News Reader

The extent of democracy in Turkey 1921-2017 is being rather idealized by a lot of these articles. It was for large periods a quasi-democracy with a strong role for the military (on a few occasions explicitly as military dictators, on many more occasions less explicitly). And beyond the military, also a strong role for paramilitaries.

In this referendum, for example, the ultra-nationalist party MHP played a strong role, supporting Erdogan. Along with their notorious neo-fascist paramilitary units, the Grey Wolves, which attacked "no" demonstrations, especially any linked to Kurdish groups. But these militias aren't a new development. They're decades old, and have had various political roles over the years, usually linked to the "democratic" establishment. Historically the MHP often carried out dirty work for the Kemalists, especially operations that the military didn't want to do officially, like attacks on leftist intellectuals and Kurdish cultural figures. What's changed is that the MHP has switched alliances from working with them to working with the AKP, at least for now, which is part of an ongoing reorientation of political alliances. A weird alliance though, since AKP are more Islamist and MHP don't really care about Islam.

The military are what historically kept Turkey from sliding into the abyss on several occasions. Erdogan recognized this and got rid of those who could have stepped in after the 'coup' last year because they would not have stood for it.

Turkey is in for a very rough time.

Bingo. The military was organized not only for defense but to specifically prevent things like this - a religion-driven dictator - from taking over the government.

Anyone that's been paying attention to Turkey for the past decade knew of this. It's one of the reasons I hang on Camfrog, the Turkish are prevalent there (although typically the ones you encounter are just trying to harass women into displaying some skin. Mention politics and their attention changes drastically.)

So military dictatorship overthrowing democracy= good. Democratically elected islamist government = bad.

Got it.

That should be self-evident.

Not everything involving a voting booth is really democratic.

I'm not going to debate the dictatorship part of your comment, but is there a islamist government (elected or not) that has been good for human rights - or any religion based government for that matter?

Not really. But military safeguards pretty much worked in secular Turkey. In establishing those lies Mustafa Kemal's genius.

Keep in mind that this referenfum was organized under a state of emergency imposed after last year's failed coup. So its democratic nature is rather questionable. The No campaigners were misrepresented and harassed.

And the media were mostly controlled by Erdogan & company.

Is there any government good for human rights? I'm thinking about Iran, which is obviously a horrible place now for human rights, but it wasn't exactly a wonderland before the Islamic revolution either.

> but it wasn't exactly a wonderland before the Islamic revolution either.

No, the Shah was pretty brutal. Besides SAVAK there were many other really bad episodes, one of which I read about some years ago but have never forgotten about as the epitome of decadency:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2,500_year_celebration_of_the_...

Use some nuance and common-sense, rather than jump to an over-simplistic, extreme argument. If said military had an alternative leader better than Stalin or Hitler, that's an obvious improvement.

Except a democratically elected islamic government is turning into an islamic dictatorship.

Um, no.

Turkey is a peculiar case. Turkey's post-Ataturk government has (usually) been more secular than the United States (to the point of--at times--making it illegal for women to cover their heads). It was quite a pleasant place for non-muslims to visit, e.g. alcohol was legal and widely available, and Israelis routinely went on holiday to the Turkish coast.

In the past, when the Turkish government has veered toward theocracy, the military has stepped in, restored democracy, and stepped back. The coup didn't work this time, and its failure made the theocracy stronger. I fear that secular Turkey is over.

Believing that a secular state de-facto ruled by the military is the best option for Turkey is certainly a viewpoint people have. I mostly object to calling that situation "democracy".

Turkey is not "de-facto ruled by the military." The military has historically taken orders from elected civilian leaders as long as those leaders embrace democracy and equality and the principles of Ataturk. When the civilian leaders veer too far from what they were elected to do, the military steps in and stops it, then retreats. Turkey's military is like the US Supreme Court; it's a check on the ambitions of fanatical would-be dictators who want to divide the country and pit groups against one another. This is certainly not how military coups usually work, which is why I said Turkey was a special case. (Except this time the coup failed and the dictator won.)

What? Seriously man! let me get it right. You think that people shouldn't be allowed to choose the Ideologies of their home country. That they shouldn't strive for their freedom and fight corruption and poverty. And you think that military coups and secular leadership persecution is the way to go for non western countries?

I can't respond to this because your assumptions display too much ignorance of Turkish history.

This is spot on. Not only that, but Turkey always had a tough time taking the final step into being a "true" representative democracy with similar characteristics to western democracies. From the seculars point of view, they was always worried of islamists taking over. From the nationalists point of view (who have had a lot of overlap with secularists historically), they were always afraid of kurds getting representation, which they saw as being separatist, and being secretly backed by foreign governments who benefit from division (kinda like Iran, Latin America, etc). In either case, whether you think it's justified or not, some groups got denied rights that would have been given in other countries.

Erdogan and AKP's political innovation (I think) was supporting a strong muslim-nationalist identity that consolidated support from both camps (thus denying them to the opposition) and created a very coherent story for why people should support him.

He also garnered a LOT of support from the international scene, especially western Europe and the US, when he got elected. It got hailed as a step forward for democracy, who willfully ignored and dismissed Erdogan's much more shady history. And, admittedly, Erdogan did start out as a right-of-center leader, which helped people suspend some hangups. He made a lot of changes that helped his base in the long run - easier access to stable government jobs, better public services, etc. Meanwhile, eventually, the secular camp's worries would be proven correct, of course, but in a slightly different way than they anticipated.

Re: MHP, it is mostly just grasping for relevance in an age where its voter base could just as easily go to AKP and CHP, which would reduce its overall support to less than 10% of the country, which would mean that they don't get seats in parliament (a law passed during the secular era to deny representation leftist / "communist" / kurdish / extremist groups, depending on who you ask).

---

edit re: whether "Islam" caused all this https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14131444

The US wants Erdogan in power. It gives us another convenient target later on whereas before we had no major reason to bother with Turkey. Turkey is rife with resources, from oil to gems. I say this as I look at a slab of agate cut from a $6K chunk of Turkish tube agate - http://i.imgur.com/dYyaTkL.jpg

Turkey, just like Iran, will never be a convenient target. It has a population way bigger than Iraq and Afghanistan combined, it has a massive, modern, western-equipped military [1] and a huge amount of geopolitical leverage due to its control of the Dardanelles as well as European-Africa-Asia migration routes.

No sane US military leader would attack even if they created a new Sultanate and aligned with Russia or Iran.

[1] http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-det...

If the US took over Turkey, its natural resources would be worth maybe 1% of the US GDP, and it would fact an unending insurgency that would require several million US troups to keep under control, and lead to thousands of US soldiers being killed every year. Nobody in the US is stupid enough to want that.

The US wants a friendly government in Turkey because its location is very desirable for the US's ability to stage and project military power in the Middle East.

One crucial difference is that the military juntas of the past always gave the power back to the civilians after setting the country back to its “factory settings." The most brutal of the coups, the one in 1980 in which about 50,000 people were jailed/tortured, created the constitution that was in force until now. It was the checks and balances in that constitution that were completely dismantled yesterday.

In contrast, Erdogan is not the type to leave power peacefully.

Checks and balances? 1982 constitution was a horrid piece of work and it took decades to patch it up to a miserable kinda working state.

Indeed it is a pity that this vote was not to completely destroy that junta crap and install a new modern constitution.

That's correct - the 1982 constitution was far from being truly democratic - but it did have some oversight mechanisms over the executive branch.

Now, one guy can rule by decree and renew elections at will.

Your analysis implies far right fractions had a big role in this referendum, which to be honest does not ring correct, on the contrary, even though leader of MHP asked to support yes vote, they overwhelmingly voted no, something effectively destroying his leader position, and perhaps his party.

Never have seen so many lies, and fake news bundled in one comment. Come on don't waste people's time.

Edit: And clearly I have voted No in this referendum. Just such spaghetti bundles of false information isn't needed. Sorry.

As an American I have no idea about the veracity of the GP claims or your claims that they are false. Can others step in and make HN great again by having a cool, reasoned debate about the history of thr Turks within the confines of their democratic endeavors?

I would like to know more. I've never understood the parliamentarian system. I'm use to a presidential system with checks and balances.

The clearest article I've found on current factions (not as much on the history of the Turkish state), from an admittedly left-wing perspective, is this one: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/04/erdogan-constitutional-am...

Might I also suggest: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/13/magazine/inside-turkeys-p...

OT, but parliamentarian systems with first-past-the-post election of MPs seem to work very well. That's basically the entire anglo-saxon world minus the U.S.

Advantages of the parliamentarian system over presidential include:

- short campaigns where the parties run, rather than personalities - short campaigns because the PM can call snap elections any time - parliament is usually not adversarial towards the government - elections are less frequent

Disadvantages: - parliament is usually not adversarial towards the govt - elections are less frequent

What I'd like to see is a way for the House of the U.S. Congress, and the POTUS, to be able to do something similar to calling snap elections: accelerate the election schedule by shortening the terms of currently-sitting congress-critters and the POTUS. (Presidential term limits would have to be adjusted to an amount of time rather than number of terms.) I think this would give us the best of both worlds. It would give Congress a huge check on the POTUS and vice-versa: whenever POTUS is very unpopular Congress could call elections, and whenever POTUS is very popular POTUS could call elections. And campaign seasons would be much shorter: presidential campaigns would not be two years long, but weeks or months. But a new primary system would be needed, that's for sure.

Please point out the lies with sources instead so everyone can learn the truth

If you want a source, download Camfrog and go talk to any Turkish person (of which there are TONS) and find out for yourself.

This whole citation needed garbage needs to stop. Go find the information from the obvious source, or don't, your choice. The burden of proof is a BS burden and is an excuse for people to not exercise their brains and SUPPOSED education.

> If you want a source, download Camfrog and go talk to any Turkish person (of which there are TONS) and find out for yourself.

Just like I wouldn't trust the average American to be able to meaningfully distinguish truth from misinformation (do I even trust myself to?), I wouldn't trust "any Turkish person" to do so.

You're making a strong, blanket claim, which you say is easily verifiable. Back it up.

I gave you the means of verification. It's not my problem if you are not using it. (BTW many of the Turkish people on Camfrog are directly in the military.)

The top-level comment had no sources either.

I have no idea what to believe of it, if anything. Kemalists supporting AKP?! That one is hard to believe, unless they've accepted that they're out of power and want to curry some -- that's a possibility, I guess.

What is clear is that Turkey is sliding towards dictatorship with an islamist feel. Nothing good may come of it.

The Kemalists are all gone from the military, so expect nothing from that department.

We live in interesting times.

You may very well be right. I don't know the situation well enough to tell. But downvoted because you called out gp for lies without giving a single counter-argument.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com