Political Experiment Stumbles in Turkey

Washington Post ^ | 04-27-03 | Philip P. Pan

[pkpjamestown]

Effort to Reconcile Islam, Democracy Showing Few Results After Six Months

"In recent months, that has meant retreating from plans to expand academic freedom by reshaping the university system, to grant women the right to wear head scarves in schools and public buildings, to limit the army's power to expel soldiers accused of religious extremism and to adopt a softer position in negotiations with Greece over the fate of Cyprus. The party has also been unable or unwilling to force the bureaucracy to implement new laws aimed at granting the minority Kurdish population greater cultural rights."

"Erdogan and his colleagues "are very scared of the state apparatus. They think the only way to deal with the state apparatus is to ally with it," said Cuneyt Ulsever, a prominent writer and economist who supported the party. "So they end up doing what the establishment tells them to do.""

"In many ways, Erdogan is haunted by the failure of the Islamist movement led by his former mentor Necmettin Erbakan. When Erbakan was elected prime minister in 1995, he too promised to respect Turkey's secular system. But he angered the military by championing increasingly radical policies, and was ousted two years later."

[pkpjamestown]

To "coup" or "not to coup"!

[George W. Bush]

To "coup" or "not to coup"!

They've screwed themselves either way.

I don't expect the military to move against them in less than a year. And there is the EU entry to consider. Military intervention in politics is strictly forbidden and Turkey has been warned about it. Of course, the EU is using this knowing that the Stupid Party (Ankara's Islamists) will then implement more fundamentalist measures so the EU will vote against Turkish entry or the military will intervene so the EU will vote to block Turkish entry.

Either way, the EU is going to screw Turkey. But they'll cause them some agony over Cyprus and acknowledging the Armenian holocaust. They've already intervened to stop their use of the death penalty even when it's fully justified.

When all of this happens, Turkey will find their former ally, America, isn't going to come running to help them either.

[tsomer]

The things some people call "freedoms:"

...grant women the right to wear head scarves in schools and public buildings, to limit the army's power to expel soldiers accused of religious extremism ...

[Cicero]

Turkey turned against their long-time U.S. ally because they got greedy and trusted the word of France. That was stupid. Now they'll learn what French promises are worth.

Once I thought that the Turkish government should allow more religious freedom. 9/11 has proven me wrong. The generals are now between a rock and a hard place and can expect no help from us.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

As a democratic republic, Turkey didn't have the ability to go against the consensus view that we shouldn't invade Iraq across their border. Turkey's neighborhood just got a lot safer, so they aren't entirely loosers in the Iraq war.

In addition, the framers of the new Iraqi constitution are bound to look at the Turkish example for ideas in designing their own government. And in addition, Turkey should be able to benefit commercially from transhipping Iraqi oil to the Med.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

It's not as if Turkey's problems benefited us.

But it's entirely possible that with Iraq suddenly turned into a state which looks at least partly to Turkey as a model, that Turkey will turn to the south. It already has ties with Israel; make Iraq cordial (to the extent that friction with the Kurds can be finessed) and there is a real southern option open to Turkey. IMHO.

[George W. Bush]

I don't think Iraq will be quite like Turkey. Turkey normally suppresses or simply vastly outnumbers its minorities. It might work in Iraq except Iran is agitating for a radical fundamentalist Islamic state like itself through the Shiite clerics in Iran and Iraq. And 60% of Iraq is Shiite and could win any election.

Therefore, we will establish something like a three-state republic. It's constitution will guarantee minority rights. It will have checks and balances to prevent the Shiite majority from imposing itself on the Kurds and Christian and Sunnis who make up the other 40% of the country.

Otherwise, the Shiite majority would vote itself, at Iranian instigation, into a fundamentalist radical Shiite state in alliance with Iran and then plunder all the oil for the benefit of the Shiite majority. It would also grant Iran a far larger portion of the world's oil than even the Saudis have. Completely unacceptable.

A three-state federation with local election of subordinate political offices and a very heavy constitutional system protecting the rights of minorities and their ability to veto anything not in the common interest. This system will have to be safeguarded. Either by the military on the Turkish model (strong but undesirable for many reasons) or by a strong court system like ours (weaker but better if you can make it work). In any event, America will be the final guarantor of the rights of the Iraqi minorities for years to come. And our bases will just happen to be located primarily in areas of the Iraqi federation held by the minorities (Sunni/Kurd/Turkomen).

At least, that's about the only way I can see it working out.

[pkpjamestown]

As a democratic republic, Turkey didn't have the ability to go against the consensus view that we shouldn't invade Iraq across their border.

Not quite democratic yet! The army controls the country from behind the scenes. If the army thread ever gets out of the picture, the outcome is unpredictable (civil war, Islamic fundamentalism, or true democracy) That is why there is pressure from the west for reform, with ultimate prize the entrance into the EU.

The present government wants more control. By following the people's wish to stay out of the war, they kept their support from masses and at the same time they spoiled the good relation of the Turkish army with the US. Their objection in collaborating with US plans with regards of the war, was not an attack against the US, but indirect attack against the old establishment and the Generals.

Turkey's neighborhood just got a lot safer, so they aren't entirely losers in the Iraq war.

I agree!

If you are referring to the Turkish style Democracy, as I explained above, yes it is going to work for short term in Iraq. The long-term prospects, though, are dim. When you have not won the minds of the majority of the people but only the minds of their oppressive rulers, eventually you lose the game. I do not need to give you examples.

And in addition, Turkey should be able to benefit commercially from transshipping Iraqi oil to the Med.

There are many apples trees, which grow apples. Turkey is only one of the many pipeline options. Remember Rockefeller and the railroads game?

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Turkey is only one of the many pipeline options.

Quite true, and I would think Iraq would want competition among them. A pipeline thu Syria already exists, but for political reasons is shut down and may for those same reasons remain limited.

A line thru Turkey would seem the shortest route to the Med, shorter than Syria. A line thru Jordan would benefit Israel, who would want to make it worthwhile. So the change in Iraq should benefit Turkey and Jordan/Israel, while putting a salutary crimp on Syria. The latter effect can't hurt Turkey too much . . .