This week, the Turkish election crisis went to streets as at least 700,000 Turks supported their secular principles of Turkish rule for about a century.
In a turn around from western assumptions, the military in Turkey is attempting to intervene in democratic institutions to prevent what many there see as a backslide into pre-Ataturk Caliphate Turkish religious rule.
Many groups in the west immediately jump to a conclusion when they see the Turkish army threatening to intervene in democratic elections -- but there is more relativism involved in the history of this situation.
Turkey, while not perfect in its history, has been a relatively benign neighbor to Europe since Ataturk adopted many of the forms of modern western governance in the French secular model in the period between WWI and WWII. Ataturk was a military hero, and his rise to power through the secular meritocracy of Turkey's military, though a hybrid ottoman and western education, was a model for the original "young turks" of his day.
Today, both the military and engineering elites in Turkey hold the position that secular intelligentsia do in many other countries. As institutionalized meritocracies (at least by reputation) the engineering schools and military academies produce the most liberal, modern, and western leaders in a country that has prided itself for nearly a century on its western ties. Turkey is applying for admission to the European Union, a relationship that would almost certainly benefit the country economically.
One of the best ways to scuttle these plans might be to elect a president whose wife wears a head scarf. One of Ataturk's most public controversial acts was to forbid the wearing of the fez, the tapered pillbox hat with a tassel familiar to more Americans from Aladdin's genii in Disney movies, perhaps, than in it's symbol of Ottoman Islam.
So, if we heard "the technical secular intelligentsia are speaking out against the election of a conservative Islamic president in Turkey" -- we might cheer. But without a sense of history, a literacy in Turkey's place as the portal from east to west, the Turkish army speaking out about an election seems like a different animal indeed!
-
Shava Nerad, News and Opinion Correspondent:
Shava’s column, Iconoclasm, published several times a week to Gather Essentials: Newsis an examination of the provocative ideas emerging in media and world culture behind the news.
Shava Nerad has been working on the Internet for twenty-five years, at the boundaries of Internet and social issues. She is executive director of The Tor Project as her day job. She lives in Somerville, MA with her teenage son, her fiance (a professional magician and fundraising coach), and a corgi/dachshund mutt named George.
Opinions here have nothing to do with Tor.
You can find all of Shava's Iconoclasm columns at http://Iconoclasm.gather.com
Keep up with Shava’s other postings and Gather activity by joining her Gather network -- just click here and select the orange “Connect” button on the left-hand side of the page (colleage connections only please, unless you know me on the street!)
You’ll find Shava and other News Correspondents, plus celebrity content and plenty of other News experts at News.gather.com


Comments: 12
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/48/Casablanca433.jpg
The Turkish voters are not currently in the picture: they do not elect the president in question. Executive power in Turkey rests with the Prime Minister, who is typically the appointee of the party (or coalition) that wins the parliamentary election (that's when the voters come in).The Prime Minister is then "elected" by Parliament (approved is a better word, as it's guaranteed if his party has the majority, and if they don't, there's no point in forming a government because they won't be able to govern).
Now back to the president: he is again "elected" by the representatives in Parliament, for a longer term, and he is the head of state the same sort of way as the queen is the head of state in Britain. Their functions are mainly ceremonial, though they do have the right to veto certain things.
Just thought I'd clarify that. I'm no expert on Turkish politics, but they have the same system in a number of European countries.
This is in short what is going on: the current ruling party is the one with the Islamist tendencies. They wanted to have a president after their own heart. The secularists in Parliament voted against him, so he didn't get the required number of votes. The ruling party is upset and suddenly sees a need to rewrite the rules and have the people of the country elect the president directly. That's not how democracy works either: you don't get to change the system just because you lose.
I don't like military dictatorships. I don't like theocracies. It looks, from the number of Turkish people on the streets over the weekend, that many of them don't either. Let's hope they can avoid both.
> ... I still think the military intervention is wrong. If we want
> to support Democracy in Turkey we have to support the
> decision Turkish voters make, even if they elect leaders
> we might not share alot in common with.
I think the world is more complicated than that, it is
indeterminate. Sometimes all the people in some situation
are all wrong or majority wrong ... after all Germany voted
Hitler in. I think we should be thankful that someone is
taking the responsibility to try and halt this Islamic plague.
David, do you realize that as fundamentalist Islam grows
their intolerance to Democracy and anything but fundamentalist
Islam does also ... how can you square that will blind democracy?
If the military simply "wrote a letter," then there may be "no harm-no foul," however, they too are disobeying the rule of the land. Although many Turks may desire to continue their application to the E.U., and retain the status quo, because they are a democracy they must allow the people to choose. Providing that the Caliphate styled majority in the Parliament does not "change the rules," then the minority has recourse in the next election. Should the majority decide to alter the Constitution or ruling document, then they must be stopped. Hopefully this turns out well without America jumping to conclusions.
Of course, underlying that statement is the assumption that the military is more "pro-secular" and wants more to be part of the EU.
Missing from the conversations & news I've heard is the "why?" Why did the Parliament elect this guy? If he truly is an "Islamist" are they leaning more that way?
He has been the foreign minister for 4 years. Why is he OK for that and not as "President?"
I get the feeling that we're still missing some facts on this side of the world and all is not as either side claims...
So it behooves some folks in the EU to play this as a no-win -- the army threatens democracy, until Gul Abdullah is elected president. Then they'll be saying how the new president is going to create a shari'ah (Islamic religious law) theocracy, and Turkey shouldn't be admitted in the EU.
So the stakes outside of Turkey have to be considered in our interpretations as much as the stakes and history inside Turkey.