ANKARA: The Constitutional Court on Tuesday annulled a parliamentary election on the presidency, blocking a candidate whose background is in political Islam and pitching Turkey into what will probably be early national elections and a referendum on the role of religion in its future. In a 9-to-2 ruling, the court upheld an appeal by Turkey's main secular political party, which sought to block Abdullah Gul, an ally of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's, from becoming president, objecting to what the party said are his Islamic credentials. But Gul has kept Islam largely out of public policy in his four years in government and his supporters said the decision was simply a desperate attempt to hold on to power by Turkey's secular elite, which has controlled the state since Ataturk's revolution in 1923. Turkey is an important American and West European ally in a troubled region and its stability is crucial. It shares borders with Iran, Iraq and Syria. It is a member of NATO and has good relations with Israel. It has also been critical for the U.S. military effort in Iraq, providing an airbase in the south that supplies much of northern and central Iraq. The ruling - which involved the legality of a parliamentary vote for Gul that was held Friday - was more political than legal: The court is part of the secular establishment that is now mounting an assault against Erdogan and the emerging class of devout Turks that he represents. Its decision did not come as a surprise. Immediately after the ruling, a spokesman for Erdogan's party said it would support early elections as long as Parliament agreed to lower the age requirement for candidates. Turkey's 550-member Parliament must vote to formally begin elections, but the measure is supported by parties across the political spectrum and is expected to pass. Perhaps the most troubling question Tuesday night was what action the military might take. It sees itself as the defender of Ataturk's secular legacy and has ousted four elected governments since 1960 to make that point. In an unusual warning Friday night, the military told the government it would intervene if Erdogan strayed too far from the secularism that is the backbone of the state. "It's going to be truly dangerous - the divisions are going to grow," said Morton Abramowitz, now a senior fellow at the Century Foundation who was a U.S. ambassador to Turkey. "You have what seems to be a slowly evolving coup." The court's decision was a turning point for modern Turkey, where enormous change has swept society in the past decade. Vast numbers of religious Turks have moved from the countryside to the secular cities, and have been elevated by an economic boom. That new layering of society, and the rise of Erdogan's party, is bringing out concerns among secular Turks that their lifestyles could be in danger. It was that worry that drew hundreds of thousands of protesters onto the streets here and in Istanbul last week. "I'm very worried about the future of society," said Asli Aydintasbas, Ankara bureau chief for the newspaper Sabah. "I've never seen such an emotional debate. It's so polarized." That polarization was evident in political leaders' reactions to the court's ruling. Deniz Baykal, leader of the party that filed the petition, the Republican People's Party, spoke glowingly. "From now on, no party has the chance to dictate a president," he said. The verdict "will claim its place in legal history as highly respectable and important." But members of Erdogan's party bitterly dismissed the decision as undemocratic and legally shoddy. Previous presidents had been elected without 367 lawmakers present in the first round of voting, and members of his party argued that they had been unfairly targeted. "The will of 11 people appointed by a single individual is superior to the will of 550 lawmakers voted in by the nation," Egemen Bagis, an adviser to Erdogan, said of the court. "This undemocratic decision will give Turkey the image of a banana republic." http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/05/01/europe/turkey.php
The Turkish Constitution actually supports the military in this. Turkey has very strong constitutional restrictions on anything religious appearing in politics, including even restrictions on politicians wearing religious clothing. This isn't some rogue action by the military as the article tries to portray.
Yes, I believe the military is acting in the spirit of Ataturk and acting within the constitution. But can you still call Turkey a democratic state if the military has the power to interfere in politics? I know the EU bid has hit a roughpatch. But how does this play on Turkey's bid to become a member of the EU?
As near as I can tell, almost all of the opposition to Turkey is ethnic and religious bigotry; Christian Europeans don't want any 'Arab' Muslims (Yes, I do know that they are Turkmen) in their club. Often it is dressed up to look like something else, but in the end I think that is what most of the opposition comes down to. In that sense, the final result – Turkey being prevented from inching towards a religious state – probably plays pretty well. Of course, the fact that the military had to get involved and that there is a strong group who had to be prevented from mixing religion and politics probably more than counters the benefit. Essentially I think the European Union would be more inclined to admit a secular state which has its secularity enforced by the military, than a state with a strong Muslim political movement.
There was a massive demonstration of as many as one million (or more) people supporting sectarian rule in Istanbul recently. IMO, the majority (certainly of the educated) support the sectarian state. It is the rural masses who are most subject to Islamist influence. And I'm not sure a majority of those rural people are against secular rule... the Islamists are just highly organized and can get out their vote. Kinda like our own Christian Fudamentalist minority having influence all out of proportion to their numbers. D&D. A Room Full of Idiots.
wrong on many counts. the number of people who demonstrated is 300,000 . the emerging middle class is relatively devout and that is why erdogan and the ak party are ruling the country and will increase their margins. also to cast the ak party as some islamist party is unfair. gul isn't a random pat robertson either. he is the foreign minister of turkey. the comparison between the ak party and the christian right isn't accurate. if anything they are christian democrats not the right wing of the US. in fact when the new elections are called sometime during the summer the ak party will get more seats. erdogan and gul's crimes are that their wives wear headscarfs. thats considered dangerous by turkey's military. freedom of religion and freedom of expression is being prohibited. these are some of the problems in turkey joining the Eu. in fact the EU has condemned this. turkey's repeated romance with ultra-nationalism is the problem. that was the problem with the holocaust of the armenians, that is the problem with its treatment of kurds and that will remain the problem with not doing enough to join the EU.
That demonstration is a fairly skewed stat because it occured in Istanbul. Istanbul is by far the most cosmopolitan and liberal place in Turkey. Eastern Turkey is a whole different area. You see a much more strict observance of Islamic law in the East than in the west, where it looks like a typical European country. But the numbers are in favor of a more conservative approach. I don't think there are the numbers to support an Islamic state akin to those in the Middle East, but certainly numbers are there to support some level of Islamic influence on government. The military and the courts have been the one thing standing in the way. Governments ahve generally been forced to temper their lines out of fear of a coup. The military's disproportionate influence on civilian politics can be worrisome. The AK party isn't some sort of nutso right wing Islamist party. They're the first party to embrace Islam to hold government but incredibly moderate by our perceptions of what an Islamist party is. I only worry about this because coups create massive instability. Turkey's economy has repeatedly gotten wrecked every time the military ntervened. And with today's global economy, those effects would be magnified for Turkey. Overreaction by the military in response to the AKP would be extremely worrisome.
Turkey can't be truly 'democratic' if the military continually interferes in the 'free will' of its people. The fact is this: the vast majority of the Turkish public wants a role for Islam in their public lives. The military is really the only powerful secular institution in Turkey that is standing in the way and can balance out the popularity of the moderate Islamists currently in power (remember, these guys were voted into power with an overwhelming majority; it wasn't even close). As I always say: Turkey is a nation with an identity crisis. They don't know if they should be more 'European'/Western or closer to the Muslim world and thus more proud of their Islamic roots. The majority of the public would like to see a stronger role for Islam in their lives (political and social), the military elites are hellbent on making sure that isn't the case. Sooner or later, Turkey will have to come to a decision. I think the decisive factor will be the EU membership, it can push the country in either direction. Oh, and Deckard, you're wrong.
The seperation is a fundimental limitation in the constitution. There are constitutional limitations to the 'free will of its people' in the United States as well. Democracy doesn't mean advocating the 'tyrany of the majority'.
An interesting clash between democracy and secularism. Just to take it on a tangent this was why I always cringe when I hear those people arguing that bringing democracy to Iraq will guarentee our safety. The Neo-Con belief is that democracy and secularism go together and that a democractic Iraq will be secular Iraq when it appears that would be anything but.
I read one million somewhere on the Net, but I'll take the BBC's word for it. As to your political take on Turkey, I have very mixed feelings about the Turkish state. It has been behind some of the worst genocidal acts in the last couple of hundred years, still occupies a chunk of Cypress, invades Iraq (until recently) whenever it feels like it, allows the military far too much influence, and yet has much to recommend it. I tend to lean towards whatever Ottomaton has to say about it, given that his moniker constantly makes me think of the Ottoman Empire. D&D. Wild Horses chewing Hay.
tyranny of the minority is better? the ak party isn't advocating an abandonment of a secular nation. but to forbid public displays of religion by private citizens is absurd and antithetical to our notion of a free society. the military's position on this is against all modern notions of freedom. this isn't about limiting free will of the majority that imposes their values on others. its about not allowing this non-democratic segment of the establishment to impose its values on the rest of the country.
It doesn't seem that you are particularly familiar with the concept of 'the tyranny of the majority'? I would suggest reading Alexis de Tocqueville. It is a much more complicated and intricate idea than I can properly express here. And it is a fundamental concept of American Democracy which differentiates it from 'mob rule'. The law in Turkey doesn't prevent anybody from being religious. It only prevents them from using the expression of religion in political life or as a political tool. This was not a concept written into the constitution of Turkey on a whim. In the context of the history of the country it makes perfect sense to me. Even so, I can appreciate that you might not like the rule. But to argue that it is an exceptional or unprecedented restriction on personal expression in the modern, western world is simply not true. Almost every country has restrictions on some forms of political thought and expression.
If you limit/eliminate candidates that aren't 'secular' in nature, then it seriously undermines your credibility as a democratic state (see: Iran). In the U.S., we can vote a fundamentalist Christian into office, but he/she would still be required to function within the framework of a secular state, with its secular laws and secular principles. Voting an Islamist candidate into office doesn't mean that he will automatically violate Turkey's secular principles and start a new Caliphate. In recent years in Iran, many reformists were barred/disqualified from running in country-wide elections. THAT would be undermining the will of the people. Democracy, by definition, is the will of the majority. Modern democracy also protects the rights of the minorities, but still reflects the will of the majority. It's a balancing act, but it can be done. I can appreciate that Turkey has a unique constitution and is a secular state, but that doesn't mean that people from different ideological backgrounds can't compete for public office and respect the laws of the land. Bottom line is: Turkey has yet to figure it out. Oh, btw, the U.S. isn't a "true democracy" either, but a lot closer to one that Turkey likely will ever be.
