The loss of the secular state of Turkey

It's an unfortunate fact of democracy that no matter who wins the election, there will be an unhappy minority. And I don't doubt that your friends and those of similar beliefs are unhappy and frustrated with the current political climate...but does that give them the authority to use violence to forcibly impose their beliefs on the rest of the country?

A country's military to meant to guard from external threats. The police are meant to guard from internal threats, and the politicians are meant to deal with things like the constitution. Although I know very little about Turkey's political structure, I understand that it's democratic - the people chose their leader. Those who didn't choose him have every right to be upset, but is the killing of civilians and police, the hostile takeover of national media, and the isolation of the country from the rest of the world really the right answer?

Miss_Leah wrote: It's an unfortunate fact of democracy that no matter who wins the election, there will be an unhappy minority. And I don't doubt that your friends and those of similar beliefs are unhappy and frustrated with the current political climate...but does that give them the authority to use violence to forcibly impose their beliefs on the rest of the country?

A country's military to meant to guard from external threats. The police are meant to guard from internal threats, and the politicians are meant to deal with things like the constitution. Although I know very little about Turkey's political structure, I understand that it's democratic - the people chose their leader. Those who didn't choose him have every right to be upset, but is the killing of civilians and police, the hostile takeover of national media, and the isolation of the country from the rest of the world really the right answer?

Like i said it probably is not the right answer , but even i as a citizen who can speak her mind and live in peace could see that the Turkish police did NOT guard the people from threats but blindly followed Erdogans will and picked up and imprisoned people who had another opinion , they did not uphold the constitution which states separation of church and state, and its more and more impossible for secular people to have a future in Turkey , so its a mix of people that are not protecting their citizens and failure on all fronts , if that is what the Turkish people want thats fine , but i sit here in safety , cant imagine what it is like to live under such strain , but even i can imagine that something has to give , i dont approve of the method , but i understand the army not wanting to see people being opressed more and more. I understand people standing up to tyranny ...

MartaLina wrote: Like i said it probably is not the right answer , but even i as a citizen who can speak her mind and live in peace could see that the Turkish police did NOT guard the people from threats but blindly followed Erdogans will and picked up and imprisoned people who had another opinion , they did not uphold the constitution which states separation of church and state, and its more and more impossible for secular people to have a future in Turkey , so its a mix of people that are not protecting their citizens and failure on all fronts , if that is what the Turkish people want thats fine , but i sit here in safety , cant imagine what it is like to live under such strain , but even i can imagine that something has to give , i dont approve of the method , but i understand the army not wanting to see people being opressed more and more. I understand people standing up to tyranny ...

From what I read, the police were one of the targets of the military coup. A country's police and national media are the branches of the government, so the coup targeted (and killed) police officers and took over the national media in an attempt to forcibly take control away from the government. The part of the military (because it was not the whole of the military) involved in this situation overstepped the bounds of their duty and, indeed, completely broke their oath to protect it's people by turning on them, both physically and ideologically. Is that fair or just? Eventually, once the coup was defused (though there are reports that it's still ongoing at least in part), the military members involved turned themselves in to the police force.

And what right do we have to judge people for following Erdogan? We may not like him or approve of the way he runs his country, but clearly the majority of the country does, which is why he was elected.

Miss_Leah wrote:

MartaLina wrote: Like i said it probably is not the right answer , but even i as a citizen who can speak her mind and live in peace could see that the Turkish police did NOT guard the people from threats but blindly followed Erdogans will and picked up and imprisoned people who had another opinion , they did not uphold the constitution which states separation of church and state, and its more and more impossible for secular people to have a future in Turkey , so its a mix of people that are not protecting their citizens and failure on all fronts , if that is what the Turkish people want thats fine , but i sit here in safety , cant imagine what it is like to live under such strain , but even i can imagine that something has to give , i dont approve of the method , but i understand the army not wanting to see people being opressed more and more. I understand people standing up to tyranny ...

From what I read, the police were one of the targets of the military coup. A country's police and national media are the branches of the government, so the coup targeted (and killed) police officers and took over the national media in an attempt to forcibly take control away from the government. The part of the military (because it was not the whole of the military) involved in this situation overstepped the bounds of their duty and, indeed, completely broke their oath to protect it's people by turning on them, both physically and ideologically. Is that fair or just? Eventually, once the coup was defused (though there are reports that it's still ongoing at least in part), the military members involved turned themselves in to the police force.

And what right do we have to judge people for following Erdogan? We may not like him or approve of the way he runs his country, but clearly the majority of the country does, which is why he was elected.

Maybe i have no right to judge people who follow Erdogan , but i can have an opinion on what it has brought to people who are opposed to state and religion not being kept apart , and i agree , if that is what the people of Turkey want than that is it , but i hope the people who are against Erdogan at least get a chance to get away, they kept Ebru Umar for two weeks as a hostage because she stood up against Erdogan , and the only reason she is still alive is because she is also Dutch , which made it possible for diplomats to get her out of Turkey unharmed. We will have to see how it works, i dont want to be right Leah, i would rather not be I am just worried how easy constitutions can be overturned ...

MartaLina wrote: Maybe i have no right to judge people who follow Erdogan , but i can have an opinion on what it has brought to people who are opposed to state and religion not being kept apart , and i agree , if that is what the people of Turkey want than that is it , but i hope the people who are against Erdogan at least get a chance to get away, they kept Ebru Umar for two weeks as a hostage because she stood up against Erdogan , and the only reason she is still alive is because she is also Dutch , which made it possible for diplomats to get her out of Turkey unharmed. We will have to see how it works, i dont want to be right Leah, i would rather not be I am just worried how easy constitutions can be overturned ...

You absolutely can. And I happen to share that opinion.

I hope that the people against Erdogan can muster enough support to get him out of office and put someone there who will better uphold secularity. I just think that a military coup is an unjust and morally bankrupt. It undermines the value of human life and spirit of democracy.

But as outsiders, that's all we can do: hope and offer our support to the people.

Miss_Leah wrote: It's an unfortunate fact of democracy that no matter who wins the election, there will be an unhappy minority. And I don't doubt that your friends and those of similar beliefs are unhappy and frustrated with the current political climate...but does that give them the authority to use violence to forcibly impose their beliefs on the rest of the country?

A country's military to meant to guard from external threats. The police are meant to guard from internal threats, and the politicians are meant to deal with things like the constitution. Although I know very little about Turkey's political structure, I understand that it's democratic - the people chose their leader. Those who didn't choose him have every right to be upset, but is the killing of civilians and police, the hostile takeover of national media, and the isolation of the country from the rest of the world really the right answer?

Not to get it off topic, but depending on the country, the military's job can be more than just "guarding from external threats." The oath I took when I joined the US Navy stated that I would "defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic." Meaning... if the government were to go completely bonkers and start violating our Constitution left and right, there could be a possibility of a US military led coup d'état. Granted it also talks about obeying the orders of the President. Do I expect our military to do the same thing if such a situation were to arise? Not really.... but you never know...

Back on topic a bit, given that there is a history of military led coups in Turkey, often because the government has been seen as over stepping their boundaries as laid out by the Turkish constitution, I would imagine that somewhere the military was given such responsibilities. Of course I could be wrong. But what I do know is that the Turkish constitution calls for strict secularism, and that has been slowly degraded under the current, and still standing, government.

Avalonslight wrote:

Miss_Leah wrote: It's an unfortunate fact of democracy that no matter who wins the election, there will be an unhappy minority. And I don't doubt that your friends and those of similar beliefs are unhappy and frustrated with the current political climate...but does that give them the authority to use violence to forcibly impose their beliefs on the rest of the country?

A country's military to meant to guard from external threats. The police are meant to guard from internal threats, and the politicians are meant to deal with things like the constitution. Although I know very little about Turkey's political structure, I understand that it's democratic - the people chose their leader. Those who didn't choose him have every right to be upset, but is the killing of civilians and police, the hostile takeover of national media, and the isolation of the country from the rest of the world really the right answer?

Not to get it off topic, but depending on the country, the military's job can be more than just "guarding from external threats." The oath I took when I joined the US Navy stated "both foreign and domestic." Meaning... if the government were to go completely bonkers and start violating our Constitution left and right, there could be a possibility of a US military led coup d'état. Not that I expect such a thing to happen but you never know.. . . .

Back on topic a bit, given that there is a history of military led coups in Turkey, often because the government has been seen as over stepping their boundaries as laid out by the Turkish constitution, I would imagine that somewhere the military was given such responsibilities. Of course I could be wrong. But what I do know is that the Turkish constitution calls for strict secularism, and that has been slowly degraded under the current, and still standing, government.

Yes, I was going by the traditional definitions of military vs police.

And I'm assuming a lot when discussing Turkey as I'm not an socio-political expert. I'm simply criticising the methods of the coup: violence and control. And I don't believe a history of it is an excuse to continuing to engage in this kind of violence.

Miss_Leah wrote:

Avalonslight wrote:

Miss_Leah wrote: It's an unfortunate fact of democracy that no matter who wins the election, there will be an unhappy minority. And I don't doubt that your friends and those of similar beliefs are unhappy and frustrated with the current political climate...but does that give them the authority to use violence to forcibly impose their beliefs on the rest of the country?

A country's military to meant to guard from external threats. The police are meant to guard from internal threats, and the politicians are meant to deal with things like the constitution. Although I know very little about Turkey's political structure, I understand that it's democratic - the people chose their leader. Those who didn't choose him have every right to be upset, but is the killing of civilians and police, the hostile takeover of national media, and the isolation of the country from the rest of the world really the right answer?

Not to get it off topic, but depending on the country, the military's job can be more than just "guarding from external threats." The oath I took when I joined the US Navy stated "both foreign and domestic." Meaning... if the government were to go completely bonkers and start violating our Constitution left and right, there could be a possibility of a US military led coup d'état. Not that I expect such a thing to happen but you never know.. . . .

Back on topic a bit, given that there is a history of military led coups in Turkey, often because the government has been seen as over stepping their boundaries as laid out by the Turkish constitution, I would imagine that somewhere the military was given such responsibilities. Of course I could be wrong. But what I do know is that the Turkish constitution calls for strict secularism, and that has been slowly degraded under the current, and still standing, government.

Yes, I was going by the traditional definitions of military vs police.

And I'm assuming a lot when discussing Turkey as I'm not an socio-political expert. I'm simply criticising the methods of the coup: violence and control. And I don't believe a history of it is an excuse to continuing to engage in this kind of violence.

I understand that you dont want violence , i dont think the people in Turkey want violence but they might not see another way as Erdogan tries to undermine the contstitution and the army or a part of the army , which they would not need if there was not violent conflict and attacks decided to this coup as a last attempt to safe what is left of the contstitution , i prefer peacefull solutions , we all do , but i strongly believe that sometimes just is not possible as Canada's , the Netherlands, America and other countries are involveld in overseas wars , fighting "terrorism".
And its not the history of violence that is perpetuated its the ignoring of the constitution that seems to be the problem in Turkey , again and again. Europa has urged secular turks to stay calm but somehow after another 25 journalist were arrested and a list of 2300 seculair judges was released in the media that were labelled as "not religious therefor not to be trusted" and as enemies of Erdogans wish for a religious state ..i think something snapped !

Miss_Leah wrote: A country's military to meant to guard from external threats. The police are meant to guard from internal threats, and the politicians are meant to deal with things like the constitution.

It depends on the country. In Turkey's case, the political leaders are not the ones in charge of the military. The president-as-commander-in-chief model does not exist there as it does in the United States. The military stands on its own, reporting to its own leaders (many of whom have been rounded up in the aftermath of this.) During last night's coup attempt, the military (the coup plotters) were fighting the police (who *do* answer to the government), and as a result most of the deaths were from the military or police. The military in Turkey is a lot more complicated than the militaries of most other countries, and this is likely a result of Turkey's unique history.

Speaking of Turkey's history, the way it usually works in Turkey is this: a leader is "democratically elected" (usually on the heels of voter suppression, control of media and human rights violations, a la Erdogan) and serves for some time. The leader slowly tightens their grip on the country, becoming more autocratic and doing things that violate the supposed secular ideals of the country. A military coup occurs, the leader is forced out of power and a military council rules briefly, then holds "democratic elections" and hands power back to the people. Rinse and repeat. The last time this happened was in 1997 (though, in terms of an actual coup by force, we'd have to go back to 1980) and as sad as it sounds, Turkey was well overdue for this. It's just their way of balancing the scales, not that I agree with it.

In fact, I kind of suspect Erdogan was expecting/hoping for this to happen. Now he can tighten his hold on the country (which has been neither free nor truly democratic for some time) with impunity, silencing his possible opponents and strengthening his place overall. It's not so much a loss for Turkish secularism as further erosions of Turkish "democracy," freedom of the press, human rights, etc. Since NATO countries have to pay lip service to "democracy" in Turkey, don't expect any western nations to protest much. Erdogan didn't call the coup "a gift from Allah" in his airport speech for nothing.

Adi wrote:

Miss_Leah wrote: A country's military to meant to guard from external threats. The police are meant to guard from internal threats, and the politicians are meant to deal with things like the constitution.

It depends on the country. In Turkey's case, the political leaders are not the ones in charge of the military. The president-as-commander-in-chief model does not exist there as it does in the United States. The military stands on its own, reporting to its own leaders (many of whom have been rounded up in the aftermath of this.) During last night's coup attempt, the military (the coup plotters) were fighting the police (who *do* answer to the government), and as a result most of the deaths were from the military or police. The military in Turkey is a lot more complicated than the militaries of most other countries, and this is likely a result of Turkey's unique history.

Speaking of Turkey's history, the way it usually works in Turkey is this: a leader is "democratically elected" (usually on the heels of voter suppression, control of media and human rights violations, a la Erdogan) and serves for some time. The leader slowly tightens their grip on the country, becoming more autocratic and doing things that violate the supposed secular ideals of the country. A military coup occurs, the leader is forced out of power and a military council rules briefly, then holds "democratic elections" and hands power back to the people. Rinse and repeat. The last time this happened was in 1997 (though, in terms of an actual coup by force, we'd have to go back to 1980) and as sad as it sounds, Turkey was well overdue for this. It's just their way of balancing the scales, not that I agree with it.

In fact, I kind of suspect Erdogan was expecting/hoping for this to happen. Now he can tighten his hold on the country (which has been neither free nor truly democratic for some time) with impunity, silencing his possible opponents and strengthening his place overall. It's not so much a loss for Turkish secularism as further erosions of Turkish "democracy," freedom of the press, human rights, etc. Since NATO countries have to pay lip service to "democracy" in Turkey, don't expect any western nations to protest much. Erdogan didn't call the coup "a gift from Allah" in his airport speech for nothing.

I suspect that is true. But the question remains: is violence towards civilians and civil servants a reasonable solution to anger towards the a leader and his party?