NationStates Jolt Archive

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/04/28/turkey.election/index.html

So basically, they're telling the army to respect democracy, even if said democracy results in a theocracy. I like that :rolleyes:

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/04/28/turkey.election/index.html

So basically, they're telling the army to respect democracy, even if said democracy results in a theocracy. I like that :rolleyes:

It's the only way it can be. If the people don't want democracy then in order to be democratic you have to abolish democracy.

Well that's democracy for ya.. the worse form of governance there is if you don't count all the rest..

hang on a minuet there....Turkeys secular now :eek: :p

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/04/28/turkey.election/index.html

So basically, they're telling the army to respect democracy, even if said democracy results in a theocracy. I like that :rolleyes:

so what are you advocating? interfering with the democratic process to preserve "democracy"? that's way more of a contradiction if you ask me.

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/04/28/turkey.election/index.html

So basically, they're telling the army to respect democracy, even if said democracy results in a theocracy. I like that :rolleyes:
So, in order to 'protect' democracy, democracy should be abolished?

So, in order to 'protect' democracy, democracy should be abolished?

In order to protect democratic institutions, democracy must accept limits to defend against populism that would remove democracy permanently. It's the basis of Constitutional restrictions.

In order to protect democratic institutions, democracy must accept limits to defend against populism that would remove democracy permanently. It's the basis of Constitutional restrictions.

democracy is rule by the people, no? so if the people want a theocracy, the people get a theocracy. pretty simple really.

In order to protect democratic institutions, democracy must accept limits to defend against populism that would remove democracy permanently. It's the basis of Constitutional restrictions.
Of course, that's not under dispute, I don't think. What the problem is is that it is the military threatening to intervene in an election in order to prevent a candidate they don't like winning an election. Democracy - in this case the right to chose their President - should only be limited by constitutional means and by a court of law on the basis of proven wrongdoing.

Of course, that's not under dispute, I don't think. What the problem is is that it is the military threatening to intervene in an election in order to prevent a candidate they don't like winning an election. Democracy - in this case the right to chose their President - should only be limited by constitutional means and by a court of law on the basis of proven wrongdoing.

Except the Constitutional mechanisms in Turkey are not strong enough to defend themselves without the support of the military.

democracy is rule by the people, no? so if the people want a theocracy, the people get a theocracy. pretty simple really.

I'm a firm believer in Constitutional Republicanism, with flavors of Burke, not a pure democrat.

I'm a firm believer in Constitutional Republicanism, with flavors of Burka, not a pure democrat. Burka flavor?,
is that like pistachio? :D

I'm a firm believer in Constitutional Republicanism, with flavors of Burke, not a pure democrat.

seems to me that constitutions inhibit democracy if they block popular candidates from being elected to public office.

seems to me that constitutions inhibit democracy if they block popular candidates from being elected to public office.

Democracy isn't always a good thing. In order to protect the basic human rights of a minority sometimes limits have to be placed on democracy.

hang on a minaret there....Turkeys secular now :eek: :p

Fixed. :D

I know, I know, bad pun, bad pun!

Feel free to groan.

Except the Constitutional mechanisms in Turkey are not strong enough to defend themselves without the support of the military.
That's quite possibly true, but I don't think that trying to influence the outcome of an election is the right way to go about it if he is legally entitled to stand. Should, if elected, his government pass laws that are unconstitutional, and the legal system does nothing, then that may be a more appropriate time for action. Until this candidate has actually done something wrong, I don't think it appropriate to attempt to prevent his becoming president in a democratic election.

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/04/28/turkey.election/index.html

So basically, they're telling the army to respect democracy, even if said democracy results in a theocracy. I like that :rolleyes:as long as the people can vote out the President.. its still a Democracy.

Its NOT like when the King of England founded his own religion..
or maybe todays Vatican state.

Those were/are REAL theocracies.. NOT this Turkey.

hang on a minuet there....Turkeys secular now :eek: :pIt is. And the military wants it to remain secular. They are protecting the constitution.

seems to me that constitutions inhibit democracy if they block popular candidates from being elected to public office.
As far as I am aware, the Turkish constitution doesn't do that, apart from age requirements etc. What I think is going on is that the military thinks, if elected, he will do something that does violate the constitution, and they therefore want to try and block him from becoming president. Being punished, in effect, in case he commits a crime.

At least that's my take on it. Feel free to correct me.

as long as the people can vote out the President.. its still a Democracy.

Its NOT like when the King of England founded his own religion..
or maybe todays Vatican state.

Those were/are REAL theocracies.. not this case.other REAL theocracies I am aware of are The Incas, the Pharaohns, and maybe the emperor of Japan. (most are history)

Todays Turkey would not be a theocracy.. because at any given election.. the people can elect a President who promises to change the official religion statures..

Democracy isn't always a good thing. In order to protect the basic human rights of a minority sometimes limits have to be placed on democracy.

well yes, but those limits should be placed on the powers of the person in charge, not on who is allowed to be elected. that, to me, is what constitutions and checks and balances are for. allowing military intervention in the election process is a very dangerous precedent to me.

It is. And the military wants it to remain secular. They are protecting the constitution.Military Coups are always perpetrated on the name of :

protecting The values
protecting The customs
protecting The constitution
protecting The Nation
protecting The Patria
protecting The people

and almost the same reasons are given for War and other kinds of Terrorism.

As far as I am aware, the Turkish constitution doesn't do that, apart from age requirements etc. What I think is going on is that the military thinks, if elected, he will do something that does violate the constitution, and they therefore want to try and block him from becoming president. Being punished, in effect, in case he commits a crime.

At least that's my take on it. Feel free to correct me.

that's how it appears to me. but then if this candidate were elected and violated the constitution then he could be impeached or if necessary forcibly removed or whatever they do over there in such an event.

Military Coups are always perpetrated on the name of :

protecting The values
protecting The customs
protecting The constitution
protecting The Nation
protecting The Patria
protecting The people

and almost the same reasons are given for War and other kinds of Terrorism.

Precisely. The key friction point of Liberal Democratic governments is what to do when the electorate chooses to not be democratic anymore. If a theocratic government is elected in Turkey via constitutional means, then the military has an obligation to respect process and respect the citizens of Turkey who elected it. That may be bad news for the EU, children and other living things, but that's the reality of democracy. To suggest that you're "protecting" the constitution by resorting to extra-constitutional means (like a military coup) is burning the village to save it. Orwellian rhetoric at its best, I suppose.

Of course, that doesn't mean that the EU or the rest of the world has to recognize the new Turkish government (just like the rest of the world doesn't recognize "Turkish Northern Cyprus"). Exercising choice ultimately means receiving consequences, both good and bad. Turkey would seriously damage its viability in the EU if it chose a theocracy over the secular gov't it enjoys now. That has long-term consequences for the Turks. And all of those consequences should get a full airing in an open, free democratic election. But the military isn't protecting democracy by subverting it.

about your POLL..
the First option is : Democracy under military's shadow.

I guess that is where the Military Generals make a Junta every now ant then.. and decide if they are going to.. kick out the elected President.. because he is acting like a STINKING Commie.. or acting like an STINKING Islamist.

and if after the Generals warning..the Elected President does not behave better .. The Junta declares a military coup.. kills everyone opposing them.. and in a few years they call a new election.. Hoping they dont have to redoit all over again later.

Military Coups are always perpetrated on the name of :

protecting The values
protecting The customs
protecting The constitution
protecting The Nation
protecting The Patria
protecting The people

and almost the same reasons are given for War and other kinds of Terrorism.You don't get it.
For Godwin's sake, Hitler was elected democratically. If there had been someone to protect the free society, things would have turned out quite differently. Unfortunately democracy does not necessarily get things end up in a way that would be best for the country.

the people can elect a President who promises to change the official religion statures..

You're assuming that the President would retain democratic structure, and that the people would even try to oust him.

You don't get it.
For Godwin's sake, Hitler was elected democratically. Do you really think.. Hitler is the only elected politician to provoke bloddy wars?

You're assuming that the President would retain democratic structure..why wouldn't him.. Turkey is like 90% muslim.
He pro-islam proposals are known to the People, If the people elects him.. its because they agree with him.

Do you really think.. Hitler is the only elected politician to provoke bloddy wars?

Way to miss the point entirely.

Way to miss the point entirely.what is his point?
"Hitle is evil"? of course he is.

Do you really think he is the only Evil politician to ever be elected?

..that the people would even try to oust him.they would only need to patiently wait for the next elections.

Like the people of Iran.. or US

I would say both US and the Iranian peoples are very patient. ;)

Meh, Germany has a President and Chancellor from a party that calls itself Christian, they've had this scenario numerous times, but Germany is still secular.

As far as I know, the Justice and Development party is a Moderate spin off of an older party which was accused of being Islamic. Religion isn't really a central part of the parties platform, just normal Conservatism. I'm sure there's a slight religious twist to the party, but I doubt they'd ever replace the constitution with Sharia.

what is his point?
"Hitle is evil"? of course he is.
Do you really think he is the only Evil politician to ever be elected?And it's ok that evil politicians get elected because of popularity or what?
Don't you think that the military, or just someone, should in such cases do little evil for the greater good? Isn't freedom worth more than democratic procedure?

they would only need to patiently wait for the next elections.

Like the people of Iran..

Yes, because Ahmadinejad ISN'T just a figurehead controlled by the mullahs :rolleyes:

And it's ok that evil politicians get elected because of popularity or what?Evil politicians have been elected, evil politicians accomplices of Murder, torture, and bloody wars.

That is no reason to suspend Democracy.
That is no reason create a Junta of rich Generals making them the ultimate power-brokers.. with an shadow Damocles sword hanging over the head of the elected president.

in your pseudo-democracy.. (as far as the President ears are concerned) the preferences and opinions of the Junta Generals.. would weight more than the preferences and opinion of the hundreds-of millions US citizens

Meh, Germany has a President and Chancellor from a party that calls itself Christian, they've had this scenario numerous times, but Germany is still secular.Of course. 'Christian' does not mean that much in Germany. Thank gods.

Meh, Germany has a President and Chancellor from a party that calls itself Christian, they've had this scenario numerous times, but Germany is still secular.

As far as I know, the Justice and Development party is a Moderate spin off of an older party which was accused of being Islamic. Religion isn't really a central part of the parties platform, just normal Conservatism. I'm sure there's a slight religious twist to the party, but I doubt they'd ever replace the constitution with Sharia.
The difference with the Christian Democrats is that they've always been commited to secular government. The ruling party of Turkey has its roots in islamist politics. They tried to criminalise adultery and I'm sure they'd be a lot more radical if the military wasn't as eager to interfere in politics. I think the godwin comparison is legitimate here - surely it would have been a good thing if a general had removed Hitler from power?

Evil politicians have been elected, evil politicians accomplices of Murder, torture, and bloody wars.

That is no reason to suspend Democracy.
That is no reason to keep a group of Generals be the ultimate power-brokers with an shadow Damocles sword hanging over the head of the elcted president.
Some politicians are worse than others. Even the less kind western politicians of the late twentieth century have nothing on Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, ect. Surely a military coup would have been a good thing if it was the only way to get rid of these people? (Though admittedly Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot weren't elected or anything).

Evil politicians have been elected, evil politicians accomplices of Murder, torture, and bloody wars.

That is no reason to suspend Democracy.
That is no reason to keep a group of Generals be the ultimate power-brokers with an shadow Damocles sword hanging over the head of the elcted president.

Yes. WWII and the Holocaust were no reason to suspend democracy :rolleyes:

You just keep digging yourself into a bigger hole.

Evil politicians have been elected, evil politicians accomplices of Murder, torture, and bloody wars.

That is no reason to suspend Democracy.
That is no reason to keep a group of Generals be the ultimate power-brokers with an shadow Damocles sword hanging over the head of the elcted president.You rather wait until the elected evil politicians suspend democracy, huh? And what's worse: suspend freedom.

Democracy is overrated. If the electorate is stupid or easily manipulated then democracy is worth nothing.

Yes, because Ahmadinejad ISN'T just a figurehead controlled by the mullahs :rolleyes:#1 The Iran Mullahs are against some of the key policies of the President of Iran (notably the Nuclear rethoric)

#2 last Iranian election the Mullahs were backing another candidate.. he got second place.

Democracy is overrated. If the electorate is stupid or easily manipulated then democracy is worth nothing.the solution for that is EDUCATION.

NOT your bloody Junta generals.

You just keep digging yourself into a bigger hole.you have been long enough in NSG to know..
that whenever I dig a hole.. the hole is for you.. not for me. ;)

#1 The Iran Mullahs are against some of the key policies of the President of Iran (notably the Nuclear rethoric)

The operative word is "rhetoric". The President has no power, just talk.

#2 last Iranian election the Mullahs were backing another candidate.. he got second place.

The illusion of freedom and democracy. They can elect their own leader, but it's not like he can do anything.

the solution for that is EDUCATION.

NOT your bloody Junta generals.Not all are susceptible to education. Look at US Republican voters.

..surely it would have been a good thing if a general had removed Hitler from power?sure.
if

#1 it stopped being a Democracy (when he said he was no longer going to call elections)

or
#2 The moment its clear he is Evil.

___________________________________
Do you really think I would have shaded a tear if any of these evil politicians were assassinated by a Junta??

Heck.. at this point I would not mind someone taking down GWBush before he starts the Iraq War.

In order to protect democratic institutions, democracy must accept limits to defend against populism that would remove democracy permanently. It's the basis of Constitutional restrictions.

Who has the right to set/alter the constitutional restrictions? If it's the people then it's obviously pointless. If it's not the people then the question is how you select those people and how you ensure they don't set "bad" restrictions.

sure.
if

#1 it stopped being a Democracy (when he said he was no longer going to call elections)

or
#2 The moment its clear he is Evil.#2 was clear even before Hitler got elected.

Heck.. at this point I would not mind someone taking down GWBush before he starts the Iraq War.Too late :rolleyes:

#2 was clear even before Hitler got elected.
you were there?

When i mean "it was clear".. I mean "clear for the German voters"
again.. the Key ingredients are EDUCATION and INFORMATION.

BTW.. NSGenralites should vote better.. because they are better informed than the average voter.

When i mean "it was clear".. I mean "clear for the German voters"
again.. the Key ingredients are EDUCATION and INFORMATION.Well, the book he wrote before he got elected could have given some hints. "Mein Kampf" was pretty telling, I suppose.

Well, the book he wrote before he got elected could have given some hints. "Mein Kampf" was pretty telling, I suppose.So.. you did read the book?

democracy is rule by the people, no? so if the people want a theocracy, the people get a theocracy. pretty simple really.
Then you get a Tyranny by Majority because theocracy's are horrible if you're not of the religion.

The Military does this about every 20 years anyway. The government gets too religious and unstable, the Turkish military coups and restarts with a non-religious government...


I wonder if our military would remove a corrupt or unstable leadership.
(Looks at current administration)
Guess not.

Then you get a Tranny by Majority because theocracy's are horrible if you're not of the religion.

Wow. It's like, I want to see that, but at the same time, not.

What an utterly useless crap argument the EU, US and NSGer majority's spewing.

A constitutional representative democracy like the one of Turkey, isn't there to give the majority what they want. It's there to afford the most people the most freedom, without risking the integrity and continued existence of the state in it's current form.

At least a handful of the regimes in EU are set up in exactly the same way, with exactly the same limitations, to avoid exactly this kind of situation. The only difference is an overwhelming majority of us EU fuckers want it that way, so it's never put to the test. If it was, the same damn thing would happen. It'd just be messier, since none of us had an Ataturk kind of guy to explicitly mandate our militaries with enforcing the integrity of our political systems.The Military does this about every 20 years anyway. The government gets too religious and unstable, the Turkish military coups and restarts with a non-religious government... Yes they do. And it's a bad, bad thing. But the alternative is a fucking nightmare.

... I'm so glad I couldn't get residency status in Turkey. Stroke of fucking luck that.

Turkey really aint ready for the EU yet...

But aside from that, I think the army is actually doing the right thing here, admittedly through the wrong means. Pure democracy is just as bad as a dictatorship and the rights of the minority have to be respected and if the military are the people who will ensure this, good luck to them.

Then again, there's always the danger that the military oversteps her bounds. 'Tis a conumdrum.