Turkish Madness and Secularism

[Каие]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7321964.stm

A prosecutor in Turkey has filed a case aimed at banning the Prime minister, President and Ruling party from Politics, for being anti-Secular in other words they allowed basic freedom of religion and expression/association.

People always talk about Religious Extremism, I say this is exactly the same but on the other side of the blade. Forcing people to be secular by denying them basic rights to go to university and work with a headscarf etc.

[Kiljan Arslan]

I agree but more on grounds that the guys a ing who uses islam like the Republican party in the US has had a habit of using christianity.

[Каие]

I agree but more on grounds that the guys a ing who uses islam like the Republican party in the US has had a habit of using christianity.

Irrelevant because this situation isn;t an impeachment on loss of faith but a ban on religious grounds, undemocratic.

In some way I support some of the Turkish actions. Many people think Turks are crazy but they are just reacting to their prior history. Most Turks know how Islam helped to bring down the Ottoman Empire in numerous ways. This makes them create a thick wall between church and state. Their seperation of church and state has helped them to go from being a 3rd world country to being one of the most stable and prosperous countries in the Balkans and Middle East. Turkey is a respected country now because of the initiatives of men like Ataturk. Turks still practice Islam at home but not in government.

This isn;t about practising Isam in government, they're being hated because they allowed young women to wear the headscarf (not even the full headscarf but a hair cover) in universities to incrase the number of girls in higher education. Not only is that a) basic rights of democracy b) its a positive policy to educate everyone.

[Icefrisco]

In some way I support some of the Turkish actions. Many people think Turks are crazy but they are just reacting to their prior history. Most Turks know how Islam helped to bring down the Ottoman Empire in numerous ways. This makes them create a thick wall between church and state. Their seperation of church and state has helped them to go from being a 3rd world country to being one of the most stable and prosperous countries in the Balkans and Middle East. Turkey is a respected country now because of the initiatives of men like Ataturk. Turks still practice Islam at home but not in government.

[Holger Danske]

In some way I support some of the Turkish actions. Many people think Turks are crazy but they are just reacting to their prior history. Most Turks know how Islam helped to bring down the Ottoman Empire in numerous ways. This makes them create a thick wall between church and state. Their seperation of church and state has helped them to go from being a 3rd world country to being one of the most stable and prosperous countries in the Balkans and Middle East. Turkey is a respected country now because of the initiatives of men like Ataturk. Turks still practice Islam at home but not in government.

And that is how it ought to be!

[God-Emperor of Mankind]

In some way I support some of the Turkish actions. Many people think Turks are crazy but they are just reacting to their prior history. Most Turks know how Islam helped to bring down the Ottoman Empire in numerous ways. This makes them create a thick wall between church and state. Their seperation of church and state has helped them to go from being a 3rd world country to being one of the most stable and prosperous countries in the Balkans and Middle East. Turkey is a respected country now because of the initiatives of men like Ataturk. Turks still practice Islam at home but not in government.

Agree with this.
I think it's best for everyone that Turkey maintain it's strong secular state.
Maybe it's a bit too strong but maybe that is what it takes.

Isn;t secularism then a breach of human rights and democratic freedom of religion, speech, association and dress?

No, it's only a breach if they force people not to be muslims which they aren't.

[Crimson Scythe]

I've always thought that AKP was playing with fire in tinkering with regulations on religion, creating chaos while there were far more important issues to deal with, like slowing growth (Turkey didn't reach the 5% GDP growth goal for 2007, but was at 4.5%), rough times ahead with the US credit crunch, problems with water management, etc.

I'm of two minds on this court case. On one hand, it's clearly not the best thing to be doing from a democratic rights or foreign relations point of view, especially with the EU breathing down Turkey's neck and constantly looking for an excuse to throw up obstacles. The EU's criticism of this action alone will likely increase the number of Euroskeptics in Turkey, because of the perception that the EU is interfering in Turkey's internal affairs yet again. But on the other hand, AKP has done some questionable things during its time in power. Look at the length of the case file: 162 pages. I'd bet that most of the items in there are relatively insignificant, but it's the sheer number of items that makes one pause.

I don't think the AK party should be banned, though, particularly since most of the support for it comes from people who are happy with its economic policies, who also usually don't care one way or another about religious freedoms (I'd bet that most prefer to keep their religion completely private). AKP's a popular party because of its performance, not because of its piety. That said, however, I think some of its MPs should be put on trial because of specific issues, basically to make an example of them to make sure that the party as a whole doesn't deviate too much from the strict separation of mosque and state.

And for those who are talking about the 'Kemalist military' aka the 'Deep State', I'd point out that the military has kept a pretty low profile since the last elections. They haven't been completely out of sight, but they've been pretty quiet on political issues, except when it involved Turkey's foreign policy vis-a-vis the PKK and northern Iraq. Even with the Ergenekon ring being busted up, the military has cooperated pretty well I'd say, particularly for a 'shadow state' that 'really' runs the show in Turkey.

[white-wolf]

I've always thought that AKP was playing with fire in tinkering with regulations on religion, creating chaos while there were far more important issues to deal with, like slowing growth (Turkey didn't reach the 5% GDP growth goal for 2007, but was at 4.5%), rough times ahead with the US credit crunch, problems with water management, etc.

I'm of two minds on this court case. On one hand, it's clearly not the best thing to be doing from a democratic rights or foreign relations point of view, especially with the EU breathing down Turkey's neck and constantly looking for an excuse to throw up obstacles. The EU's criticism of this action alone will likely increase the number of Euroskeptics in Turkey, because of the perception that the EU is interfering in Turkey's internal affairs yet again. But on the other hand, AKP has done some questionable things during its time in power. Look at the length of the case file: 162 pages. I'd bet that most of the items in there are relatively insignificant, but it's the sheer number of items that makes one pause.

I don't think the AK party should be banned, though, particularly since most of the support for it comes from people who are happy with its economic policies, who also usually don't care one way or another about religious freedoms (I'd bet that most prefer to keep their religion completely private). AKP's a popular party because of its performance, not because of its piety. That said, however, I think some of its MPs should be put on trial because of specific issues, basically to make an example of them to make sure that the party as a whole doesn't deviate too much from the strict separation of mosque and state.

And for those who are talking about the 'Kemalist military' aka the 'Deep State', I'd point out that the military has kept a pretty low profile since the last elections. They haven't been completely out of sight, but they've been pretty quiet on political issues, except when it involved Turkey's foreign policy vis-a-vis the PKK and northern Iraq. Even with the Ergenekon ring being busted up, the military has cooperated pretty well I'd say, particularly for a 'shadow state' that 'really' runs the show in Turkey.

While I aggre many points you made, I disaggree lot of points also.

I've always thought that AKP was playing with fire in tinkering with regulations on religion, creating chaos while there were far more important issues to deal with, like slowing growth (Turkey didn't reach the 5% GDP growth goal for 2007, but was at 4.5%), rough times ahead with the US credit crunch, problems with water management, etc.

I do not think AKP as a religious party. Most I can say majority of members of this party are not atheists.

I do not think AKP was playing with fire. If you think "giving rights to female university students to wear head cover (türban)" (which could not be used because of Ulasalcıs' resistance) is a "tinkering with regulations on religion", you are wrong. It is a democratic right. I do not aware any else of "tinkering with regulations on religion".

About economic problems; I am not an expert for this matter. However, I can say AKP is the most successfull party at the economics at last years.

I'm of two minds on this court case. On one hand, it's clearly not the best thing to be doing from a democratic rights or foreign relations point of view, especially with the EU breathing down Turkey's neck and constantly looking for an excuse to throw up obstacles. The EU's criticism of this action alone will likely increase the number of Euroskeptics in Turkey, because of the perception that the EU is interfering in Turkey's internal affairs yet again. But on the other hand, AKP has done some questionable things during its time in power. Look at the length of the case file: 162 pages. I'd bet that most of the items in there are relatively insignificant, but it's the sheer number of items that makes one pause.

I am of one mind on this court case. It is a direct attack to Turkish democracy. I fear EU will stop the accession talks.

Again, I do not think AKP has done questionable things. Most of the things at the case file are simply idiotic. For example at the case the attack on the newspaper Cumhuriyet is counted as an argument. It says attack was done because of AKP. But, we know now the attack was done by "Ergenokon" guys. It is very ironic that Cumhuriyet newspaper does not mention that fact while they were attacking to AKP when "Ergenekon" connection was not solved.

I don't think the AK party should be banned, though, particularly since most of the support for it comes from people who are happy with its economic policies, who also usually don't care one way or another about religious freedoms (I'd bet that most prefer to keep their religion completely private). AKP's a popular party because of its performance, not because of its piety. That said, however, I think some of its MPs should be put on trial because of specific issues, basically to make an example of them to make sure that the party as a whole doesn't deviate too much from the strict separation of mosque and state.

I think AKP will be banned. I do not trust our High Court. Do you remember imfamous 367 decision?

And for those who are talking about the 'Kemalist military' aka the 'Deep State', I'd point out that the military has kept a pretty low profile since the last elections. They haven't been completely out of sight, but they've been pretty quiet on political issues, except when it involved Turkey's foreign policy vis-a-vis the PKK and northern Iraq. Even with the Ergenekon ring being busted up, the military has cooperated pretty well I'd say, particularly for a 'shadow state' that 'really' runs the show in Turkey.

I do not think the Military is "Deep State". However I think certain elements of "Deep State" is in the Military.

I am very curious why the Military keeps a low profile. May be about their famous e-coupe and AKP's big election victory after that and "Ergenokon". :hmmm:

I think the case againts AKP was created because;
- AKP's decision to open university doors to head-scarved girls
- Ergenokon.

I have to add something why AKP was successfull in the elections. Recently a famoust model, a "white Turk", Aysun Kayacı said that "why my vote is equal to a sheep herder?" in a TV program. This is the mentality of high court judges and Kemalists. While this mentality is alive at "white Turks" minds, there will always parties like AKP and "white Turks" will never won an election.

my two cents.

[Crimson Scythe]

I do not think AKP as a religious party. Most I can say majority of members of this party are not atheists.

I do not think AKP was playing with fire. If you think "giving rights to female university students to wear head cover (türban)" (which could not be used because of Ulasalcıs' resistance) is a "tinkering with regulations on religion", you are wrong. It is a democratic right. I do not aware any else of "tinkering with regulations on religion".

I don't think my problem with the AKP is so much the religious element, as much as it is with putting the good of the constituents before the good of the country. Such systems ultimately develop into lobby-ocracies which never get anything done. The reason why Turkey has been able to modernize so rapidly is because of the one country-one government-one policy approach. Turkey began to really stagnate when its electorate began to polarize, essentially forming into lobby groups. So far, the more conservative middle class is running the show through AKP (owing to the incompetence of the other parties as much as anything else). But what happens when another group takes over? Will policies be reversed and new cronies put in power? That's no way to run a country and will only create internal tension.

As for religion's presence in the government, there's two aspects I don't like. One is in the diplomatic arena. Emphasizing a Muslim identity is the last thing a Turkish government should be doing, especially now, with the Islamophobia that's going around. Not serving alcohol during diplomatic functions or showing up stag (with no wife, though this is understandable in this particular case) further reinforces the preconception that Turks are different from Westerners.

The second is actually subtle pressure on government workers. This concern is based on the experiences of members of my family, so it's possible that it isn't systemic. Basically, the new AKP-appointed bosses (at the Vakif offices in Ankara in particular) have been essentially shaming their subordinates into more 'morally acceptable' behaviour outside the office, on issues such as smoking, not going to the mosque, or drinking alcohol. The first and third points in particular are an issue when they happen to go to the same restaurants, for instance (the ones that are only open to government employees of a certain rank or higher). It may not seem like anything too important, and might even seem more in jest than anything else, but it's worrying nonetheless, particularly since the receivers of these lectures feel they have to play along or else.

And even the türban issue is a concern, not in and of itself, but because of how it played out in schools between students. My cousins, none of whom wear headscarves, were basically taunted by their classmates who came to class wearing the türban. I'm all for female students being allowed to wear headscarves in schools in principle, but these kinds of reactions show, IMO, that Turkish society isn't yet mature enough to handle that democratic right.

About economic problems; I am not an expert for this matter. However, I can say AKP is the most successfull party at the economics at last years.

True, but I'd say that's as much because of the fact that they had a majority in parliament than anything else. Most of the other governments were coalitions that kept falling apart, which is why economic reforms that were known to be needed were never enacted. I'd be willing to bet that if, say, CHP had somehow managed to have a majority government, it would have pushed through the very same economic reforms. In that sense, AKP was just in the right place at the right time.

I am of one mind on this court case. It is a direct attack to Turkish democracy. I fear EU will stop the accession talks.

Again, I do not think AKP has done questionable things. Most of the things at the case file are simply idiotic. For example at the case the attack on the newspaper Cumhuriyet is counted as an argument. It says attack was done because of AKP. But, we know now the attack was done by "Ergenokon" guys. It is very ironic that Cumhuriyet newspaper does not mention that fact while they were attacking to AKP when "Ergenekon" connection was not solved.

I think this is a test for the Turkish judicial system as much as anything, especially in terms of impartiality. If the circumstantial evidence is dismissed (as it should be), the courts will have no choice but to rule in AKP's favour. Then you get to specific charges against specific officials, while the party itself is spared. Here, you might have some more decisive actions, but again, it's a test of impartiality.

I think AKP will be banned. I do not trust our High Court. Do you remember imfamous 367 decision?

I take it you're referring to the presidential parliamentary vote that CHP challenged. That was a simple matter of arithmetic. Only 361 MPs showed up when 367 were needed for a quorum. The courts had no choice but to declare the vote void, legally speaking. AKP only needed a simple majority after that (276) in the third round, which they got, hence why Abdullah Gul is President now. The courts' decision might not have been the popular one, but in the legal sense it was both the correct one and the only one. If the High Court had thrown out CHP's objection, it would have broken the law, plain and simple.

I do not think the Military is "Deep State". However I think certain elements of "Deep State" is in the Military.

I am very curious why the Military keeps a low profile. May be about their famous e-coupe and AKP's big election victory after that and "Ergenokon". :hmmm:

Heh, coups aren't things that can be 'half-done'. Either you have a coup or you don't. E-coups and soft-coups are just media buzz words to add emphasis where it isn't needed, usually to further someone's opinion.

As for the military keeping quiet, I'd say that they're letting go of the reigns and finally letting the state stand on its own two feet. It's like a parent teaching a child to ride a bike. You allow the child to fall a few times to learn how to ride, but you're still close by to make sure the child doesn't go into traffic by accident. Parents also like to nag and criticize their kids. This is true whether it's a family of four or 70 million.

I think the case againts AKP was created because;
- AKP's decision to open university doors to head-scarved girls
- Ergenokon.

I don't think the Ergenokon thing had much to do with it, but the headscarf thing probably did. But this is also an opportunity for AKP, as much as a threat. It gives AKP a public forum in which to demonstrate that it is merely a conservative party like any other, rather than an Islamist one. If it can prove its case (and the court will have to be very careful because of international scrutiny), I think AKP will be much more widely accepted in Turkey, even among secularists. This is a chance for AKP's leaders to distinguish between their own personal piety and the party's stance.

I have to add something why AKP was successfull in the elections. Recently a famoust model, a "white Turk", Aysun Kayacı said that "why my vote is equal to a sheep herder?" in a TV program. This is the mentality of high court judges and Kemalists. While this mentality is alive at "white Turks" minds, there will always parties like AKP and "white Turks" will never won an election.

my two cents.

I mentioned this in another thread, IIRC, but I'll put it here too. This kind of mentality is NOT Kemalist, but rather a bizarre, elitist splinter group of it. I would call myself a Kemalist in the literal sense (as in I believe in the 'Six Arrows' or pillars of Kemalism), but I can't identify with people who think like Aysun Kayacı. This splinter mentality violates the Republicanism and Populism pillars of Kemalist ideology, which very clearly spell out that the people of Turkey must be free to make their own decisions, with guidance from the elites, but without overt interference. In a way, this mentality also violates the Secularism pillar as well, because it attacks freedom of thought among non-elites in Turkey. Secularism was originally meant to eliminate religious pressure on peoples' thinking, but I think it should be adapted to apply to non-religious pressure as well, i.e., the elitist attitude that they know best. The elites are meant to serve the people as much as themselves, if not more.

[Tajir]

In some way I support some of the Turkish actions. Many people think Turks are crazy but they are just reacting to their prior history. Most Turks know how Islam helped to bring down the Ottoman Empire in numerous ways. This makes them create a thick wall between church and state. Their seperation of church and state has helped them to go from being a 3rd world country to being one of the most stable and prosperous countries in the Balkans and Middle East. Turkey is a respected country now because of the initiatives of men like Ataturk. Turks still practice Islam at home but not in government.

That's absolute bullcrap.

Iran's economy is TWICE the size of Turkey and they are as Islamic as countries can get in today's world.

Secularism has only brought turmoil to Turkey.

[removeduser_487563287433]

That's absolute bullcrap.

Iran's economy is TWICE the size of Turkey and they are as Islamic as countries can get in today's world.

Secularism has only brought turmoil to Turkey.

Secularism modernised Turkey and prevented it from being picked apart and destroyed by its enemies, and is what has led it to a position of standing as a member of NATO and a potential member of the EU. It is a generalism, but arguable, that all good that has happened in Turkey for the past one hundred years has happened thanks to the reforms and secularisation of Ataturk, and everything bad is thanks to those who have pursued Islam at the cost of the state.

[Gokturk]

Iran's economy is TWICE the size of Turkey

You have lost all your credibility by linking us a table of GDP per capita.

So what, Qatar has a stronger economy than Turkey?

[Heinz Guderian]

That girl with the blue scarf is probably the most beautiful women i have ever seen.

[Tajir]

You have lost all your credibility by linking us a table of GDP per capita.

So what, Qatar has a stronger economy than Turkey?

Iran and Turkey have the SAME population, that's the difference, smart guy!

And my statistic was not well adjusted.

Here is for 2007 for Turkey and Iran.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat.../2001rank.html

Iran's economy is actually 25% larger than Turkey's and Turkey still has a larger population.

I'm not a historian on either country, I'm just listing random facts and the difference between an ultra-secular and ultra-religious society and how a path of forced secularism won't make life easier for Turks.

[PointOfViewGun]

Iran and Turkey have the SAME population, that's the difference, smart guy!

And my statistic was not well adjusted.

Here is for 2007 for Turkey and Iran.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat.../2001rank.html

Iran's economy is actually 25% larger than Turkey's and Turkey still has a larger population.

I'm not a historian on either country, I'm just listing random facts and the difference between an ultra-secular and ultra-religious society and how a path of forced secularism won't make life easier for Turks.

I thought people already gave the answer for this. A quick glance at the wiki tells that in 2008, about 55% of the government's budget came from oil and natural gas revenues. This isn't a direct evidence but it sure tells a lot why the economy of Iran is 27.7% larger than that of Turkey.

[Gokturk]

Iran and Turkey have the SAME population, that's the difference, smart guy!

And my statistic was not well adjusted.

Here is for 2007 for Turkey and Iran.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat.../2001rank.html

Iran's economy is actually 25% larger than Turkey's and Turkey still has a larger population.

I'm not a historian on either country, I'm just listing random facts and the difference between an ultra-secular and ultra-religious society and how a path of forced secularism won't make life easier for Turks.

1. Geographycally, Iran is a larger country. That gives them lots of free lands to do economical activities.

2. Iran's economy is vulnerable. Just bomb and fire some oil reserves and that is enough for crushing Iran's economy.

[Daneboy]

That's absolute bullcrap.

Iran's economy is TWICE the size of Turkey and they are as Islamic as countries can get in today's world.

Secularism has only brought turmoil to Turkey.

And if you destract oil revenues?? A temporary ressource that will be gone in some 50 years. Iran hasen´t done much good with the oil money.

If Turkey have had oil on the otherhand....

[PointOfViewGun]

And if you destract oil revenues?? A temporary ressource that will be gone in some 50 years. Iran hasen´t done much good with the oil money.

If Turkey have had oil on the otherhand....

They do actually. It's just lacks investment.

Women do not wear Turbans.

It's a name and it's what it's called in Turkey. Women wear turbans.

[Crimson Scythe]

That's absolute bullcrap.

Iran's economy is TWICE the size of Turkey and they are as Islamic as countries can get in today's world.

Secularism has only brought turmoil to Turkey.

Eh, the data there is inaccurate (possibly on purpose, since the CIA should know better). The number given for Turkey's GDP per capita is the nominal GDP per capita, not the PPP value. Turkey's GDP per capita in PPP for 2007 is closer to $15,000. The value given for Iran's GDP per capita, however, is indeed the PPP value, which would mean that Iran's nominal GDP per capita is actually somewhere around $8,800. Iran's nominal GDP per capita could actually be lower than that estimate too, since Iran tends to hold much more in the way of foreign reserves because of her oil (something Turkey doesn't have). Basically, you're comparing apples and oranges because one of them has been mislabeled.

Turkey is far more competitive than Iran, since Turkey can't rely on a cash-crop like oil. Most Gulf states and Saudi Arabia have much higher per capita incomes, but they're hardly more developed than Turkey because they've specialized in a single, though admittedly lucrative, industry: oil. Turkish industries are among the strongest in the region, if not the strongest in the region. And that's because of the secularist (read Kemalist - through etatism) focus on industrial development that's been active since the late 1920s.

EDIT: Thought people might find this interesting concerning Turkish attitudes towards the headscarf/turban: http://www.gallup.com/poll/104257/He...ish-Women.aspx
Posted without comment.

[Odenat]

so what? the prosecutor did the right thing. It shows a) there's division of forces at turkey b) ppl. who defend secularism.

Think about it. If a prosecutor closed the Nazi party at 1932 in Germany or Humeyni's party at 1977 in Iran, world wouldn't be better?