Even the Turks want Islamists in power. Of course, they also dominated the last parliamentary elections. Almost everywhere 'free and fair' elections take place, Islamists end up benefiting the most. If they hold free elections in Morocco or Egypt or Syria or Jordan or Saudi or Pakistan, the same would be true. Is there any longer a doubt that the vast majority of the Muslim-majority world wants Islam (or at least 'Islamists') involved in politics in some form or fashion? You can reject it, you can detest it, but it's the new reality we will eventually have to deal with. Either continue to prop up secular despots or -- if we're serious about spreading 'democracy' in the world -- be prepared to deal with leaders that do not necessarily agree with our vision of the world, where secularism reigns supreme. This doesn't mean that they can't be "rational actors" on the world stage (in many cases, they've proven that they are), after all any leader is still trusted to serve his country's national interests, which is usually the domain of secular politics. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070828/ap_on_re_mi_ea/turkey Former Islamist wins Turkish presidency ISTANBUL, Turkey - A devout Muslim won Turkey's presidency Tuesday after months of confrontation with the secular establishment, promising to be impartial and praising the idea that Islam and the state should be separate. Still, in a sign that tension could lie ahead, top generals did not attend the swearing-in ceremony in parliament of Abdullah Gul, their new president and commander in chief. Local media interpreted their absence as a protest against the 56-year-old Gul, the former foreign minister in Turkey's Islamic-oriented government. Gul, who has tried to engineer Turkey's entry into the European Union with sweeping reforms, received a majority of 339 votes in a parliamentary ballot in the capital, Ankara. The secular opposition had thwarted Gul's earlier bid for the presidency, but his triumph this time was assured by a ruling party that won a second term in general elections last month. The burly and affable new president was careful to reach out to the many Turks who suspect he has a secret Islamic agenda. "In democracy, which is a system of rights and liberties, secularism, one of the core principles of our republic, is as much a model that underpins freedom for different lifestyles as it is a rule of social harmony," Gul said. "I will continue my path, in a transparent and fully impartial manner, embracing all my citizens." Gul, a former practitioner of political Islam who later cast himself as a moderate, vowed to campaign for gender equality and the rule of law, and he said "change and diversity" were not things to be feared. "It is imperative for our country that we carry out the political and economic reforms geared toward EU membership more resolutely," he told lawmakers in a nationally televised speech. He also praised the military as a necessary deterrent and a symbol of independence, a day after the military chief, Gen. Yasar Buyukanit, warned that "centers of evil" were plotting to corrode secular principles crafted nearly a century ago by Turkey's revered founder, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. The military has ousted four governments since 1960, and an initial presidential bid by Gul was derailed over fears that he planned to dilute secular traditions. Some commentators said the generals' failure to show up for Gul's oath-taking was ominous. "It shows that his presidency is a source of tension from the onset," Rusen Cakir, a leading analyst on political Islam, said on Turkey's private NTV television. "We will need to wait and see if the tension turns into a crisis or whether some kind of harmony is reached." One of Gul's sons attended the ceremony, but his wife, Hayrunnisa, did not. She wears an Islamic-style head scarf, which is banned in government offices and schools and is viewed by secularists as a troubling symbol of religious fervor, and even militancy. Some who wear the head scarf say the state's restrictions on Islamic attire amount to a curb on freedom of expression. Turkey's president has the power to veto legislation and official appointments, and Gul has failed to allay secularist fears that he would eagerly approve any initiatives of the government of his close ally, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Erdogan said he planned to submit his new Cabinet to Gul on Wednesday. Erdogan had presented his list earlier this month to outgoing President Ahmet Necdet Sezer, who said the new president should approve it. "I hope (Gul's presidency) is beneficial to the country, the people and the republic," Erdogan said. "God willing, together, shoulder to shoulder, we will carry Turkey forward." Gul took over the post from Sezer, a staunch secularist, in a low-key ceremony that was closed to the media. On his way out of the palace, Sezer stopped his car to say goodbye to guards and journalists. Outside the palace gates, secularists waved Turkish flags, threw flowers at his vehicle and shouted: "We are proud of you!" Police also prevented two dozen demonstrators who were protesting Gul's election from approaching the palace. Gul failed to win the presidency in two rounds of voting last week because the ruling Justice and Development Party lacked the two-thirds majority in parliament needed for him to secure the post. But the party — which holds 341 of the 550 seats — had a far easier hurdle Tuesday, when only a simple majority was required. In Washington, State Department spokesman Tom Casey said the United States welcomed "this exercise in Turkish democracy. We think it continues the course of democratic development in that country." European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso said he hoped the government "will be able to resume work ... to give fresh, immediate and positive impetus" to EU entry talks. In Gul's hometown of Kayseri, in Turkey's conservative heartland, hundreds gathered at a main square to celebrate his victory, private NTV television reported. Secularist Turks had staged mass rallies and the military threatened to intervene when Erdogan nominated Gul for president in the spring. This time, Gul said his party's victory in the general elections gave him a strong mandate to run again. Sinan Ogan, head of the Turkish Center for International Relations and Strategic Analysis, said Gul's election reflects the rising power of a middle class with religious values and mistrust of the old secular elite. But he warned that Gul's foes will scrutinize his conduct. "If he slides into cronyism, then Turkey will see what instability really means," Ogan said.
If elected Islamists honor the rule of law, don't try to change the rules after they get elected and allow themselves to be voted out of office, then welcome to the new democratic world. But if they exert a vise-like grip on power and focus primarily on consolidating their gains to the detriment of democratic institutions, that ain't democracy. In Turkey's very unique situation, the military's intimidation will act as a deterrent. Another one is Turkey's desire to join the EU. I'm curious how democratic Turkey's Islamists would be if it became official or very obvious the EU would never accept them. That's a very big carrot.
Limitations on 'the tyranny of the majority' are not unreasonable and in fact are central to every functional democratic government in existence today. You have posted a couple of threads on this subject implying that any limitation in this regard is anti-democratic. It clearly is not, and to suggest it is appeals to a very simplistic understanding of what functional democracy actually is. See also Mobile vulgus.
I would hardly call him an Islamist considering his statements and track record. I've heard interviews with Turks saying that most believed he would rule in a secular fashion. In fact, this guy is probably both more religious and more secular than George Bush (More devout of a religious man, and more secular in governing and policy making) There's a big difference in electing a devout Muslim who believes in equality and a radical Muslim who wants to take a country back to mideval times.
I don't think practical limitations/constraints within a functioning democracy is 'undemocratic', but in some cases they can definitely be seen as such. In Turkey's particular case, the Constitution stipulates a secular system, regardless of whom is in power (you could be religious and still function within the constraints of a secular system; see GWB or JFK or numerous other presidents we've had in the past). So it's perfectly legitimate for some people to feel 'uneasy' about an Islamist party dominating the government and ensure that they comply with the secular nature of Turkey's institutions. At the same time, the Turkish military's constant threat of intervention to 'overthrow' or replace candidates that it deems are not secular enough undermines democracy in Turkey. As a general rule, military intervention/leverage in civilian politics is 'frowned upon' in a democratic societies. Ideally, the military would be subjected to civilian rule, not the other way around. It's a fine line that has to be carefully toed: you may have enough constraints to counter the inherit 'weaknesses' of a purely democratic system, mainly in dealing with the threat of a 'tyrannical majority'; you also must take care not to place too many constraints on the democratic will of the majority or you will cease to be 'democratic' in nature (Iran is a pretty good case study, IMO)...so it's a delicate balance. Keep in mind that I am not one who subscribes to the idea that democracies are inherently 'benevolent' or even the most desirable form of government -- at least not in all cases.
Yeah it is, its almost impossible to explain the system there in a post. But remember it was the AKP that got the EU accession process started. It is under the AKP that Turkey has seen major economic growth and under the AKP there hasn't been the implementation of Muslim laws that everyone feared. In fact the AKP is an example of the type of Muslim political party that the US wanted to create in Iraq. A moderate party that identifies itself as Islamic but at the same time is very moderate and mainstream. Turkey has seen strong growth and improvements over the last several years and another coup would derail that so I hope the military doesn't overreact.
It's a general assessment (my personal assessment), so yes it's overly simplistic. I would be interested in hearing your views...
well see what geeimsobored said for starters...second IIRC his party got about 47% of the vote, I believe, by coalitioning with non-muslims like Armenians, also to imply Turkey as having been led by secular despots prior to this is not at all accurate. Finally - Gul would be considered a liberal pro-western reformer in nearly any other islamic state.
I should add that I don't think the military will intervene. I think the AKP has a moderate mandate to carry on with its agenda, especially regarding the economic reform and the EU membership. So far, they've largely operated within the framework of Turkey's secular constraints, but it will be interesting to see if that remains to be the case given their dominant position in the current government.
I understand that...but that 47% is a sizable majority. Turkey is not a "two-party" system, unlike the U.S. Presently, however, the AKP has a strong, conrolling majority in parliament: As of December 2005 Name of Party Number of Seats AK Parti (Justice and Development Party) 357 CHP (People's Republican Party) 154 ANAP (Motherland Party) 22 Independents 4 DYP (True Path Party) 4 SHP (Social Democrat People's Party) 4 HYP (The Rise of People Party) 1 TOTAL 546 I think you misunderstood/misread my initial post. That "secular despots" comment was in reference to some of our 'allies' in the Islamic world, not Turkey.
47% may be many things but it is not a majority, though it represented an all time high - parliamentary seats in turkey are not delegated on a strictly proportional basis though. But if that chart from Dec. 2005 is correct, the islamist party has lost a marginal amount of seats since then. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6911223.stm
I'll say this: If the AKP successfully leads Turkey into EU membership, their positive mark in history will be astounding. Even since Tony Blair made his strong public stand a couple of years ago, my hopes have been way up. The effect on the Mediterranean and Middle East would be historic. But the pessimist part of me says there will always be one thing (valid or not) used as an excuse to block it. Then when Turkey realizes it won't get in, it makes a permanent turn towards Islamic fundamentalism.
Not sure about that. I don't think the general population is particularly interested in going the direction of burkas and sharia. I hope they get entry into the EU, as Turkey as far more potential to set the example of what a modern Islamic Nation should be in the world theatre.
