I don't understand what the problem is. How is this any different from the Queen of England taking over the entire UK airwaves for a half-hour speech on Christmas Day?
/s
/s
While the Queen's approval is theoretically required for legislation and various other bits of constitutional machinery, in practice it is always granted.
The objections to the Queen's role in the power structure are theoretical; nobody can point to specific bad actions as justification for changing the system.
The objections to Erdogan are much more practical and involve suppression of opposition and journalists.
And what was the last time that the UK voted to be a monarchy? Because Turkey voting recently makes it arguably more democratic.
Of course they do. After all they are indoctrinated in its favor from an early age.
I don't see what rational people, starting from first principles, would agree to a bunch of do-nothings sitting in a palace, aristocrats owning huge plots of land that just got handed down to them, that aristocratic class having huge say in politics, networking their kids everywhere, etc.
(As for the "it's good for tourism" argument, you can have your palaces and castles made into tourist places even after you have thrown out your royals. The Palace of Versailles makes millions in tourist fees every year for example.)
You could argue that for almost anything that we have in society (Religion and the State being the two most obvious ones). And yet, it intellectually doesn't phase people the slightest. "So what if we're taught that government is good and benevolent since a tender age". This is precisely because most of society does not function using first-principles. If they did, we'd be in a completely different world right now.
Is that supposed to be an argument in favor of royalty? At best, it's about how other things people think OK and are used to from a young age are also messed up. One could use that line of logic to excuse all kind of societal issues at their time -- segregation, racism and sexism for example.
And yet, society evolved beyond those, from self principles like equality.
So? The US also wanted to do the same (build a society based on "certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"). The French too during their revolution. As did countless other revolutions besides the "commies".
Didn't end that bad for most of them, in fact that's how the modern world was build.
Would you rather we still had Kings and Pharaohs lest "some people turn to be more equal than others"?
Why is your elected president hijacking the telephone network worse than your unelected queen hijacking your tv network?
Also, if you switch over to Channel 4, you can watch an alternative speech. A few years ago, they had the President of Iran on simultaneously.
Currently, a little bit more of the half of the population supports Erdogan and the other half hates him. Though admittedly the anti-Erdigan half did not support the coup as it is believed to be orchestrated by another islamist, but still...
So, just like most politicians?
My point was that the British public would not be happy if the Queen used her time on TV to push the agenda of the half of the nation - like openly supporting or opposing Brexit using channels that are not available to the opposition.
How open is this issue for discussion? Is it acceptable for e.g. a BBC journalist to promote on camera the dismantling of royalty, if that's what they think should be done?
>A modern constitutional monarchy is a structure agreed to by the people.
Agreed when? The MPs are voted for every few years. Even the constitution can be amended and changed, for countries that have one.
Does the UK hold a referendum on the issue of keeping or abolishing royalty, at least once every generation?
I believe he's right, the Queen's message is similar.
Thus the analogy breaks twofold. First, while the radio works as expected under these conditions, the telephone does not. Secondly, opting out means to take some action without affecting anything else than what you are opting out from. If you consider opting out in this context, it's clear that waiting can not be considered to be an action we take, and thus can't be considered a way of opting out, our waiting in line could be considered to be "opting out of standing in line", an obvious contradiction.