I speak to TJ and The Tux about Turkey - NYC's politics for derelicts, as they describe it. This was an interview following former US presidential candidate Perry's comments on 'Turkey being run by Islamic terrorists'.
Jody Sabral talks Turkey to NYC's TJ and the Tux by jodysabral
Full show here: http://www.tjandthetux.com/category/episodes/
Friday, January 20, 2012
Thursday, January 12, 2012
Turkey's supreme leader
Tonight I attended the Doha Debates in Istanbul. The motion was 'This house believes Turkey is not a good model for Arab countries'. There was a variety of voices on display, and, it was, a timely discussion with over 70 Turkish journalists in prison.
As Arab countries seek to build new democractic futures, Turkey has been held up by many as a model democracy that perhaps could be applied to neighbourong countries. And why not? What alternatives are there? 'Turkey has been successful in intergrating Islamist-parties into the democractic system', said one panelist. 'The Turkish model just provides a mask for Islamists to enter parliament', said another from the opposing side.
Listening to this debate, I wondered, and have wondered for some time, 'Can an Islamist party be truly democractically-minded?' I asked the question to the panelists, who answered by saying that the model does not revolve around one particular party.
I myself am not sure that AKP are true Islamists in the Muslim Brotherhood sense. Many of us who know Turkey well, also know that fascism is a huge threat to democracy here, as it was in second world war Germany. Or even in today's America where the 99% feel disenfranchised from the democractic process.
I write this in response to a question I was posed by one of the speakers on the panel, Sinan Ulgen, who spoke against the motion. His argument was that Turkey is a good model, 'It has flaws and short-comings, but overall it is a good model for Arab countries'. He then mentioned Iran, which caught me off guard.
Having missed my opportunity to really respond to the question he raised on Iran, I will now address it. Sinan asked whether Iran was a better model. At the time I pulled the debate back to Turkey's anti-democractic movement citing freedom of speech as a fundamental element of democracy that seems to be under attack here. However, let me now respond to this comparison.
The Turkish prime minister well aware that he can not run again for the prime ministry wants to secure his grip on power and has proposed a presidential system, which many say, he will bring forth via writing a new constitution. AKP having already changed the law on presidenital elections in 2008 will be prepared to take it to a public vote.
Under the old law, the parliament elected the president. Under the new law, the public will. This would allow Erdogan to run for the top post. Most believe he would likely be elected going by the last election results. Running in 2011 - his third term for power - he got the highest YES yet in general elections ever, demonstrating the power of his popularity.
My question then to Sinan Ulgen is, how is this different from the democractic-autocracy next door in Iran? How would Erdogan's presidential grip be different from the supreme leader?
Many Iranians I know always say, 'Be mindful of your democracy, we weren't and look what we got! We were fighting against oppression in 1979, but then Khomeni came along and appointed his men in powerful positions, and look at our democracy thirty years on.'
They have a point. We are seeing the same kind of trend in Turkey where university posts are now being appointed by AKP guys, rather than democratically elected as they were in the past from within the academic community.
These institutions that Sinan Ulgen talks about as being part of the Turkish model are all good and well when you have a democractic-mindset running them. But in this region it's hard to see where that will come from with no real reform still taking place across the education system.
We foreigners are often accused of being Orientalist by raising the issue of Islamist-politics Vs secularism. But there needs to be an understanding of this definition. Yes the majority of AKP guys are Muslims, this is not the complaint I raised. I have no complaint with spiritual Islam, religion, faith of any denomination. But when religion is used in popular political discourse it becomes anti-democractic.
Erdogan said prior to the elections, 'You're either with us or against us'. May nature forbid such a thought if he gets his way and reaches the top post. As the 2011 campaign posters eerily displays, Erdogan has a long-term vision of his power which stretches till 2023. If he makes it, he'll have secured two-decades in power. So by then, will he have earned the title of Turkey's supreme leader?
Will air on January 21st http://www.thedohadebates.com/pages/?p=3285
Tonight I attended the Doha Debates in Istanbul. The motion was 'This house believes Turkey is not a good model for Arab countries'. There was a variety of voices on display, and, it was, a timely discussion with over 70 Turkish journalists in prison.
As Arab countries seek to build new democractic futures, Turkey has been held up by many as a model democracy that perhaps could be applied to neighbourong countries. And why not? What alternatives are there? 'Turkey has been successful in intergrating Islamist-parties into the democractic system', said one panelist. 'The Turkish model just provides a mask for Islamists to enter parliament', said another from the opposing side.
Listening to this debate, I wondered, and have wondered for some time, 'Can an Islamist party be truly democractically-minded?' I asked the question to the panelists, who answered by saying that the model does not revolve around one particular party.
I myself am not sure that AKP are true Islamists in the Muslim Brotherhood sense. Many of us who know Turkey well, also know that fascism is a huge threat to democracy here, as it was in second world war Germany. Or even in today's America where the 99% feel disenfranchised from the democractic process.
I write this in response to a question I was posed by one of the speakers on the panel, Sinan Ulgen, who spoke against the motion. His argument was that Turkey is a good model, 'It has flaws and short-comings, but overall it is a good model for Arab countries'. He then mentioned Iran, which caught me off guard.
Having missed my opportunity to really respond to the question he raised on Iran, I will now address it. Sinan asked whether Iran was a better model. At the time I pulled the debate back to Turkey's anti-democractic movement citing freedom of speech as a fundamental element of democracy that seems to be under attack here. However, let me now respond to this comparison.
The Turkish prime minister well aware that he can not run again for the prime ministry wants to secure his grip on power and has proposed a presidential system, which many say, he will bring forth via writing a new constitution. AKP having already changed the law on presidenital elections in 2008 will be prepared to take it to a public vote.
Under the old law, the parliament elected the president. Under the new law, the public will. This would allow Erdogan to run for the top post. Most believe he would likely be elected going by the last election results. Running in 2011 - his third term for power - he got the highest YES yet in general elections ever, demonstrating the power of his popularity.
My question then to Sinan Ulgen is, how is this different from the democractic-autocracy next door in Iran? How would Erdogan's presidential grip be different from the supreme leader?
Many Iranians I know always say, 'Be mindful of your democracy, we weren't and look what we got! We were fighting against oppression in 1979, but then Khomeni came along and appointed his men in powerful positions, and look at our democracy thirty years on.'
They have a point. We are seeing the same kind of trend in Turkey where university posts are now being appointed by AKP guys, rather than democratically elected as they were in the past from within the academic community.
These institutions that Sinan Ulgen talks about as being part of the Turkish model are all good and well when you have a democractic-mindset running them. But in this region it's hard to see where that will come from with no real reform still taking place across the education system.
We foreigners are often accused of being Orientalist by raising the issue of Islamist-politics Vs secularism. But there needs to be an understanding of this definition. Yes the majority of AKP guys are Muslims, this is not the complaint I raised. I have no complaint with spiritual Islam, religion, faith of any denomination. But when religion is used in popular political discourse it becomes anti-democractic.
Erdogan said prior to the elections, 'You're either with us or against us'. May nature forbid such a thought if he gets his way and reaches the top post. As the 2011 campaign posters eerily displays, Erdogan has a long-term vision of his power which stretches till 2023. If he makes it, he'll have secured two-decades in power. So by then, will he have earned the title of Turkey's supreme leader?
Will air on January 21st http://www.thedohadebates.com/pages/?p=3285
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)