Turkey's President Sees Nazi Germany as Model for His Country [semi-satire]

Turkey's President Recep Tayyip Erdogan says he hopes to revamp his country's constitution to establish a presidential unitary state like the one used in Germany from 1933 to 1945â€”the period when Adolf Hitler ruled and led the country into a disastrous attempt to conquer Europe. Erdogan blamed the ill-advised decisions of Hitler for World War II, not the constitutional framework constructed by the Nazis.

"Placing all power in the hands of a single man avoids the inherent inefficiencies of parliamentary government," Erdogan argued. "The clashing personalities of a multi-membered governing body like parliament impede expeditious action. Indecisive and lengthy debates clog the system. Placing all power in the hands of the president side steps these clashes and clears the way for action."

Erdogan insisted that he would not make the same mistakes that Hitler made "because unlike Hitler, I have the Quran to guide me. I am not a self-indulgent megalomaniac, but a true believer in the word of Allah. Freed from impositions of a legislative body modeled on western ideology I will be better positioned to lead Islam to universal rule over all mankind."

if you missed any of this week's other semi-news/semi-satire posts you can find them at...

--"Placing all power in the hands of a single man avoids the inherent inefficiencies of parliamentary government," Erdogan argued. "The clashing personalities of a multi-membered governing body like parliament impede expeditious action. Indecisive and lengthy debates clog the system. Placing all power in the hands of the president side steps these clashes and clears the way for action."

-close , John, to what Thomas Freidmann said vis-a vis China a year ago or so--

Close too, to what Darius said 5000(?) years ago.’
From Herodotus:
“...[3.82] This was the advice which Megabyzus gave, and after him Darius came forward, and spoke as follows:- “All that Megabyzus said against democracy was well said, I think; but about oligarchy he did not speak advisedly; for take these three forms of government - democracy, oligarchy, and monarchy - and let them each be at their best, I maintain that monarchy far surpasses the other two. What government can possibly be better than that of the very best man in the whole state?

The counsels of such a man are like himself, and so he governs the mass of the people to their heart’s content; while at the same time his measures against evil-doers are kept more secret than in other states.

Contrariwise, in oligarchies, where men vie with each other in the service of the commonwealth, fierce enmities are apt to arise between man and man, each wishing to be leader, and to carry his own measures; whence violent quarrels come, which lead to open strife, often ending in bloodshed. Then monarchy is sure to follow; and this too shows how far that rule surpasses all others.

Again, in a democracy, it is impossible but that there will be malpractices: these malpractices, however, do not lead to enmities, but to close friendships, which are formed among those engaged in them, who must hold well together to carry on their villainies. And so things go on until a man stands forth as champion of the commonalty, and puts down the evil-doers. Straightway the author of so great a service is admired by all, and from being admired soon comes to be appointed king; so that here too it is plain that monarchy is the best government.

Lastly, to sum up all in a word, whence, I ask, was it that we got the freedom which we enjoy? - did democracy give it us, or oligarchy, or a monarch? As a single man recovered our freedom for us, my sentence is that we keep to the rule of one... “

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.