Apparently, it's at least partially spurred by secularists getting fed up with Erdogan's Islamist-style government:
Anti-government riots in Istanbul (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2334284/Britons-warned-steer-clear-Turkey-riots-rock-Istanbul.html)
Saw a bit of this on TV yesterday. But being the protesters are secular, wouldn't that make them the opposite of Arab Springers who have since been hijacked by groups like the Islamic Brotherhood, etc.? The Arab Spring in Libya, Tunisia, etc. were made up of religious groups who began protesting against dictatorships.
While reading that article, kept seeing parallels with 1979 Iran after the Shah. Massive economic development progress in a decades time leads to social instability. The newly elected government changes its tune once in office and immediately takes steps to implement an Islamic theocracy. Other than demonstrations the secular class is powerless to stop the inevitable slide toward repression.. The turkish military has already been purged of troublemakers and is likely being prepared for the next phase.
^That doesn't give me a warm fuzzy.
Can an Islamic theocracy stay part of NATO? I don't think so.
Quote from: Gusington on June 02, 2013, 11:10:49 AM
Saw a bit of this on TV yesterday. But being the protesters are secular, wouldn't that make them the opposite of Arab Springers who have since been hijacked by groups like the Islamic Brotherhood, etc.? The Arab Spring in Libya, Tunisia, etc. were made up of religious groups who began protesting against dictatorships.
Hence why I put Arab Spring in quote marks, as it's indeed not really the same setup this time around. :)
Quote from: eyebiter on June 02, 2013, 11:26:40 AM
The turkish military has already been purged of troublemakers and is likely being prepared for the next phase.
IMO, this was the key move Erdogan and his cronies made when they came into power. As soon as all those generals got axed, I knew what was coming.
Turkey has traditionally been a secular state ruled from behind the scenes by its military. It's move away from a secular state is the anomaly. Not that radicals can't change the course of the state, but it's only been recently that it's even been a question of where its government tilted. That's the big reason why it was included in NATO. Well, that, and our listening stations were so much closer to the USSR.
I don't see strong parallels between Turkey today and 1970s Iran. Iran had a dictator installed by western oil companies, via the CIA. The dictator (although enlightened and progressive) held no elections and had a savage secret police force. The dictator forced progressive reforms on a people, many of whom were not ready or accepting of the changes. They felt that they had no voice and were being violently oppressed... because they had no voice and were being violently oppressed.
Turkey has elections. People have a voice, they have rights. The police are not engaged in widespread torture.
Did anyone see Anthony Bourdain's "Parts Unknown" in Libya?
I didn't catch it all, but it did make me feel a bit better about the state of affairs in Libya. In that it didn't seem like Libya was all about radical Islam after the revolution.
I did see that and thought it was great. Libya is a much more diverse country than I thought. Italian influence is still stronger there than I ever would have guessed too.
When I was in college, we had a couple of dozen Libyans studying engineering. They were mostly good guys who were just looking to get laid and party, like everyone else. There were one or two uptight ones, who were probably Qaddafi's watchdogs.
Did you see the female Libyan doctor in the Bourdain show?
Quote from: Gusington on June 03, 2013, 01:07:22 PM
Did you see the female Libyan doctor in the Bourdain show?
No, but knowing you she probably came with a theme song.
I did fall in love with her a little bit,she was hotter than I would have ever expected a Libyan woman to be
Pics or it didn't happen.
I tried and can't find one. Watch the episode, it's worth it for more than just the hot doctor woman.
On the Bourdain show--I thought it was great. I spent some time in Libya during the revolution, and loved the place.
As to the Turkey topic, the protests are undoubtedly fuelled by a widespread feeling that the AKP behaves in a majoritarian fashion, has eroded some public freedoms (notably the press), and is taking measures to undermine Turkey's secularism. Police brutality against the protests have only made things worse. The protesters--disproportionately but not entirely middle class or more secular--thus feel they are defending democratic rights.
Conversely, the AKP is by far the most popular party in the country, and would still probably win elections if they were held tomorrow (in the last elections, it had a 24% lead over the next largest party). The AKP has played a key role in the emergence of Turkish democracy. Erdogan feels that the demonstrators, having repeatedly lost free and fair elections, are trying to subvert democratic politics through street protests.
Both sides are right, in a way. The AKP is simultaneously the democratic winner of the last elections and the party with most support, and has shown some intolerant twinges and authoritarian streaks—although it also deserves credit for having advanced Turkish democratization in key respects.
Unfortunately, the current protests are having a largely polarizing effect, and with a few exceptions no one is really trying to build ground for middle-ground dialogue. Moreover, if the opposition can't move beyond street protest to a coordinated electoral challenge to the AKP, the AKP will win the next elections too. The Turkish media is awful. Even CNN Turkey has been showing animal documentaries rather than covering the protests.
As for Turkey's secularism, it was never as secular as many believe: in many ways Sunni Islam has always been a state religion, and the government actually regulates religious instruction. Then again, the West is often less secular than folks believe: the UK also has a state religion, while in the US (in contrast to many Western countries) the religious beliefs of candidates actually seem to be a factor in electoral behaviour.
Thanks, Rex. Good insights.
Quote from: Centurion40 on June 03, 2013, 09:34:34 AM
Did anyone see Anthony Bourdain's "Parts Unknown" in Libya?
I didn't catch it all, but it did make me feel a bit better about the state of affairs in Libya. In that it didn't seem like Libya was all about radical Islam after the revolution.
I did and for the most part I agree.
Quote from: LongBlade on June 02, 2013, 07:05:05 PM
That's the big reason why it was included in NATO. Well, that, and our listening stations were so much closer to the USSR.
well... that and IRBM bases and control of the only way for the Black Sea fleet to get into the Med and hummus.
Quote from: Rex Brynen on June 03, 2013, 07:53:05 PM
On the Bourdain show--I thought it was great. I spent some time in Libya during the revolution, and loved the place.
As to the Turkey topic, the protests are undoubtedly fuelled by a widespread feeling that the AKP behaves in a majoritarian fashion, has eroded some public freedoms (notably the press), and is taking measures to undermine Turkey's secularism. Police brutality against the protests have only made things worse. The protesters--disproportionately but not entirely middle class or more secular--thus feel they are defending democratic rights.
Conversely, the AKP is by far the most popular party in the country, and would still probably win elections if they were held tomorrow (in the last elections, it had a 24% lead over the next largest party). The AKP has played a key role in the emergence of Turkish democracy. Erdogan feels that the demonstrators, having repeatedly lost free and fair elections, are trying to subvert democratic politics through street protests.
Both sides are right, in a way. The AKP is simultaneously the democratic winner of the last elections and the party with most support, and has shown some intolerant twinges and authoritarian streaks—although it also deserves credit for having advanced Turkish democratization in key respects.
Unfortunately, the current protests are having a largely polarizing effect, and with a few exceptions no one is really trying to build ground for middle-ground dialogue. Moreover, if the opposition can't move beyond street protest to a coordinated electoral challenge to the AKP, the AKP will win the next elections too. The Turkish media is awful. Even CNN Turkey has been showing animal documentaries rather than covering the protests.
As for Turkey's secularism, it was never as secular as many believe: in many ways Sunni Islam has always been a state religion, and the government actually regulates religious instruction. Then again, the West is often less secular than folks believe: the UK also has a state religion, while in the US (in contrast to many Western countries) the religious beliefs of candidates actually seem to be a factor in electoral behaviour.
Just to be clear on what I think I am reading, you are saying it's ok for them to move further towards hard line Islam as long as it was voted in by the people? Having the elections trumps whatever the outcome is?
in a radical departure from my usual 'fuck them' attitude...
if its truly what their people want in an open election thats fine.
however, dont export your stupidity, dont kill people or jail people that dont agree and if people want to leave that culture let them.
the reality is that none of that will happen so screw em.
Mr. Bigglesworth: the AKP is fighting the turkish military influence over the governement and i read that they were a lot more effective in this regard than the parties before them. i do get the notion that you are feeling more comfortable with a military dictatorship than an elected conservatice / ilsamistic party?
I am.
Quote from: Keunert on June 04, 2013, 09:11:55 AM
Mr. Bigglesworth: the AKP is fighting the turkish military influence over the governement and i read that they were a lot more effective in this regard than the parties before them. i do get the notion that you are feeling more comfortable with a military dictatorship than an elected conservatice / ilsamistic party?
You've basically nailed one tenant of the political philosophy of Realpolitik.
As much as we'd like to see democracy flourish all over the world, when it might produce some kind of rabid strain of islmofacism then, yes, I'd rather see a military dictatorship friendly to us keeping the radicals down.
YMMV
Quote from: Keunert on June 04, 2013, 09:11:55 AM
Mr. Bigglesworth: the AKP is fighting the turkish military influence over the governement and i read that they were a lot more effective in this regard than the parties before them. i do get the notion that you are feeling more comfortable with a military dictatorship than an elected conservatice / ilsamistic party?
My knowledge of Turkey does not go much further than they have a reputation for making strong coffee. One tidbit I noticed the other day on the wiki page was they used to have a more diverse religious spectrum. They are now almost 100% Islamic.
Given that, it is no surprise that they might want to move to a religious state. With Sharia law. To me that is not compatible with remaining in NATO or the EU. Hitler was an elected politician. An election is no guarantee of things not going to hell.
People's lives need to move away from revolving around religeon. Especially one that seems to be open to violent interpretation. Christianity used to be the same. At some point, maybe with the King James version of the Bible or whatever the new versions are, something happened that moved people's interpretation away from violent conquest of territory. Somehow the same process is needed over there.
history teaches that western supported dictatorship has a short lifespan and backfires badly sometimes.
Shah of Persia: troubles ever since
Pinochet in Chile: not much trouble but maybe supported votes for Chavez and the like in other SA countries.
Bush Jr: 8 years of socialist islamic rule in the western heart.
IMHO Christianity's violence burned itself out when its believers got tired of fighting and dying over the course of hundreds of years. it only took a few crusades, an inquisition here and there, some feudalism and possibly the renaissance to get there.
Quote from: Mr. Bigglesworth on June 04, 2013, 09:45:10 AM
People's lives need to move away from revolving around religeon. Especially one that seems to be open to violent interpretation. Christianity used to be the same. At some point, maybe with the King James version of the Bible or whatever the new versions are, something happened that moved people's interpretation away from violent conquest of territory. Somehow the same process is needed over there.
You should read Fregosi's book
Jihad. It covers a lot of this.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/1573922471/?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&condition=used&creative=390957&linkCode=ur2&qid=1370358928&sr=8-1&tag=grogheads-20
Sorry, having a book called jihad in my house would be creepy as hell. What is the executive summary?
Quote from: Mr. Bigglesworth on June 04, 2013, 10:23:47 AM
Sorry, having a book called jihad in my house would be creepy as hell. What is the executive summary?
The executive summary is that, yes, Christians have their violent episodes (and can be equally bloody) but the concept of violent Jihad is woven into the very fabric of Islam. By contrast Christianity's chief tenant is forgiveness.
Islam goes through periods of dormancy where it isn't out conquering, but those periods of dormancy are just that - it's asleep, not gone.
The book isn't creepy - it was prescient. Published in '99 it came out just before 9/11. Well worth the read and can be had for just a few dollars.
Islam has a long history of tolerating other religions btw. i have no idea when or why it turned sour but at the height of christian brutality Islam was compared to us quite a generous religion. while i do not hope so, it isn't written in stone that christianity adheres to it's lovely principles.
just take out your bible and you will find tons of brutal laws. we just do not live by them at the moment.
Quote from: Keunert on June 04, 2013, 12:24:38 PM
i have no idea when or why it turned sour but at the height of christian brutality Islam was compared to us quite a generous religion.
maybe a couple hundred years of European colonialism and then abandonment.
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on June 04, 2013, 12:50:46 PM
Quote from: Keunert on June 04, 2013, 12:24:38 PM
i have no idea when or why it turned sour but at the height of christian brutality Islam was compared to us quite a generous religion.
maybe a couple hundred years of European colonialism and then abandonment.
Read Fregosi's book. There were some tolerant Muslim periods. They were the exception.
Quote from: LongBlade on June 04, 2013, 10:16:13 AM
Quote from: Mr. Bigglesworth on June 04, 2013, 09:45:10 AM
People's lives need to move away from revolving around religeon. Especially one that seems to be open to violent interpretation. Christianity used to be the same. At some point, maybe with the King James version of the Bible or whatever the new versions are, something happened that moved people's interpretation away from violent conquest of territory. Somehow the same process is needed over there.
You should read Fregosi's book Jihad. It covers a lot of this.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/1573922471/?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&condition=used&creative=390957&linkCode=ur2&qid=1370358928&sr=8-1&tag=grogheads-20
Thanks for the heads up on this book I'll have to add it to my list.
We're getting rather off topic here. The Turkish protests really aren't about Islam's alleged intolerances (especially given that 90% of Turks are religious—including many/most of the protesters).
Erdogan is certainly intolerant of criticism, but there's little evidence that it is because of his mild Islamism—rather, it is a personality trait. Both the (AKP) President and the (AKP) Deputy PM have rather different political styles and have apologized for police violence.
While AKP moves against the press deserve condemnation, the party has been more open than the secular parties in addressing the Kurdish issue. The AKP has also been slightly more open than the secular parties in addressing the Armenian genocide (which, of course, was committed under the secularist CUP, not under an Islamist government).
Turkey has a number of restrictions on religious freedom, but these are mainly restrictions put in place by secular governments targeted against minorities or public displays of Muslim piety. The AKP has sought to lessen several of these.
The AKP has recently placed some restrictions on alcohol, undoubtedly because of its Islamist views. Such religiously-inspired restrictions seem inappropriate to me in a diverse society in which many freely drink, but as a matter of public policy it isn't much difference from, say, religiously-inspired restrictions on same-sex marriage in the US. The religious dimension of public policy in Turkey is no greater than (and in some respects, less than) one would find in Israel.
Interestingly, past opinion polls (http://www.iri.org/sites/default/files/2011%20March%201%20Survey%20of%20Turkish%20Public%20Opinion,%20December%2018,%202010-January%204,%202011.pdf) (2010-11) have shown that a majority of Turks believe that the country has become both more democratic and more secular under the AKP. Today, however, I think Erdogan is proving to be a victim of his own political arrogance, plus a growing weariness with the incumbent, plus a backlash from those who feel excluded from current government policy.
All that, I would suggest, is far from unusual in politics—regardless of religion.
Quote from: Rex Brynen on June 05, 2013, 06:10:25 PM
We're getting rather off topic here.
^ (That's pretty common around here ;) )
Quote from: Rex Brynen on June 05, 2013, 06:10:25 PM
We're getting rather off topic here. The Turkish protests really aren't about Islam's alleged intolerances (especially given that 90% of Turks are religious—including many/most of the protesters).
Erdogan is certainly intolerant of criticism, but there's little evidence that it is because of his mild Islamism—rather, it is a personality trait. Both the (AKP) President and the (AKP) Deputy PM have rather different political styles and have apologized for police violence.
While AKP moves against the press deserve condemnation, the party has been more open than the secular parties in addressing the Kurdish issue. The AKP has also been slightly more open than the secular parties in addressing the Armenian genocide (which, of course, was committed under the secularist CUP, not under an Islamist government).
Turkey has a number of restrictions on religious freedom, but these are mainly restrictions put in place by secular governments targeted against minorities or public displays of Muslim piety. The AKP has sought to lessen several of these.
The AKP has recently placed some restrictions on alcohol, undoubtedly because of its Islamist views. Such religiously-inspired restrictions seem inappropriate to me in a diverse society in which many freely drink, but as a matter of public policy it isn't much difference from, say, religiously-inspired restrictions on same-sex marriage in the US. The religious dimension of public policy in Turkey is no greater than (and in some respects, less than) one would find in Israel.
Interestingly, past opinion polls (http://www.iri.org/sites/default/files/2011%20March%201%20Survey%20of%20Turkish%20Public%20Opinion,%20December%2018,%202010-January%204,%202011.pdf) (2010-11) have shown that a majority of Turks believe that the country has become both more democratic and more secular under the AKP. Today, however, I think Erdogan is proving to be a victim of his own political arrogance, plus a growing weariness with the incumbent, plus a backlash from those who feel excluded from current government policy.
All that, I would suggest, is far from unusual in politics—regardless of religion.
+1
i read an interview by Die Zeit with a turkish female journalist about the AKP. While she certainly doesn't like the religious view or the women issues of the party she said exactly the same what Rex stated: the AKP overall improved the democratic system of the country. there is more discussion, more political freedom and more independence of the government vs the military than ever before.
i also tend to think that Turkey has become a regional power besides Israel and Iran. and i welcome that. it is a muslim country with a moderate voice, much likely a voice that will be listened to by muslims a lot more than what the west has to say.
Quote from: Keunert on June 06, 2013, 03:34:20 AM
i also tend to think that Turkey has become a regional power besides Israel and Iran. and i welcome that. it is a muslim country with a moderate voice, much likely a voice that will be listened to by muslims a lot more than what the west has to say.
That's what most of the rest of the world has been hoping Turkey would become.
It's only when they pretend to run an embargo into Israel that some folks start to worry about the direction they're going in.