More On AKP Closure Case
The BBC has more on the case that has now been accepted by Turkey’s supreme court: “Turkey’s constitutional court has decided unanimously that it can hear a case aimed at closing down the country’s governing AK Party.” Aside from that, the prosecutor who filed the case also wants the court to ban Erdogan, Gül and 71 other MPs from politics for a number of years.
Interestingly enough, the BBC describes the AK Parti and the opposition as follows:
The case revives a battle between Turkey’s secularist establishment and the AK Party of devout Muslims.
The article is written by someone who either doesn’t know a whole lot of Turks or by someone who only knows AK Parti Turks.
Why do I say that? Because many Kemalists are also devout Muslims. They are devout Muslims in their private lives, but are secularists politically. The two can go together you know.
O, and secularists aren’t per definition the elite. To a degree they are, but many Kemalists are members of the middle class and higher middle class. The base of the AK Parti is, and has always been, the uneducated and poor masses; you know the type: living in the East or migrated to the big cities such as Istanbul, uneducated, poor, women wearing headscarves, and so on.
Anyway:
The AKP (Justice and Development Party) has one month to prepare its initial defence, but it might appeal for an extension.
The case against the AKP runs to 162 pages: a long list of what the chief prosecutor says is proof the government has an Islamic agenda.
Turkish courts have banned more than 20 parties since the 1960s, accusing them of pursuing Islamist or Kurdish separatist agendas.
The AKP argues the case against it is an attack on democracy.
It’s obviously not an attack on democracy; it’s an attack on Islamists. And lets also keep in mind that the AK Parti isn’t a majority party. The AKP won 47% of the votes, that means that the majority were against Erdogan et al. And you also have to keep in mind that many AK Parti voters last year, didn’t vote for it because they agree with Erdogan’s Islamist agenda, but because they thought that he proved in his first term that he was a moderate and that he did wonders for the country’s economy.
But now, now Erdogan has shown his true face. So you can expect support for his party to decrease quite some. But… in the meantime, they’re still in power and able to push through Islamist reforms.
As such, the attempt to shut down the AKP is quite understandable.
Fausta: “The court has decided to consider the case. The future of Turkey hinges on their decision.”
Dear Michael,
I like to talk about the definition of "Elite".
Dictionary says: "the choice or best of anything considered collectively, as of a group or class of persons"
You are right that not ALL Secularists are Elite.
But many of them in Turkey think they are and there is another name for people who think this way… (snub) :-)
But, Kel Kardes, we both know that you or I cannot defend secularism without being ignored by Islamist propagandists, or rather, without being bundled up in that secularist ELITE insinuation. Let’s just say, the passing definition of "secular elite" in the present time and place is "anyone who accepted and/or internalized the secular system."
It is a tradition of the right-wing to demonize seculars in Turkey. They used to call us ‘non-believers’. Nowadays we are elite. In fact, we are people who are in piece with Republic’s core values.
Many of the secular Turks being muslim themselves do not choose to capitalize on anti-islam sentiments for their own agenda.
Dear Nihat,
I accept your re-definition of the word. But what would you do if some people said “The passing definition of the word Islamist is actually “Good Muslims who are trying to live a Clean Life” Would you give them the same option to re-define words?
It is the beginning of “Tyranny” when one sees himself as beter then others because the next step is usually “better people should make all the decisions” and it follows “Since we make all the decisions we deserve more” etc.
Sometimes Turkish politics get mixed up in a argumant where it gets not so clear if the argumant is about Secular Rights or “Who gets what” and “I will not give my…up”
Nihat, you say “(we) cannot defend secularism without being ignored by…” perhaps… but If Secularism is an idea that came about to solve problems of humanity then it must be raedy to stand on its own merritt. To atack people who have other ideas shows insecurity. As Intellectuals we must be ready to say “Show me your idea and prove to me that it is good for me and I will do the same”
Who knows maybe I am dreaming…
Kel Oglan,
Secularism is not an idea that aims to solve problems of humanity. It is a proven principle to prevent goverments making decisions based on religious convictions. You should adjust your rhetoric to reality instead of trying to adjust reality to your rhetoric.
Nyoped,
I think you are partially correct.
Yes secularism says Govermental decisions should not be made based on Religious convictions but scientific findings. But if you leave it there and not add other things then you MAY end-up in Soviet Union or China.
You may say "What should I add to it"
Well, maybe this "it is a fundemental Human Right to choose and follow a faith freely" and "Government should be at an equal distance to all faiths including no-faith" and "Governments exist only to serve the people it rules"
Also I was not trying to adjust anything… I am just talking
By the way, rethoric means "the undue use of exaggeration or display" was I doing that. sorry.
Kel kardes, if you allow me, I’ll avoid the false dichotomy; what to base governmental decisions on: religious convictions or scientific findings? This is one popular misrepresentation of secularism, feasting nicely over the tension between science and religion. That said, there is surely historical evidence that this is what secularism meant to a lot of people. It is interesting that American secularism came about through no such falsification (to a great measure at any rate), but through a need to balance various interests against each other and through the realization that religion itself is best served if kept out of government.Your original question to me (in #4) is based on the same false dichotomy, too. You expect me to defend secularism as though it was an alternative to religion, which I won’t do because it isn’t.
(Is it just me, or do you too think that these captcha puzzles got harder lately? They must be running out of easier scanned words.)
Dear Nihat,
I do not know why you would think that I would disagree with you on this. In today’s Diverse multi-ethnic and multi religious societies (even in Turkey) Governments must keep a fair-hand when dealing with its citizens. As I said before this (in agreement with you) is to protect the religion itself.
I personally do not see a conflict between science and faith. On the contrary I think they complete each other. Of course this is my take on the issue.
You probably have read most of postings today so I hope you would understand where I am comming from: individuals must be FREE to have or NOT have faith and practice it as they see fit. Governments must be kept on a leash to protect the individual. And JUSTICE must be established between individuals and between individuals and their Government. We should not be stuck on terminaligy.
Please forgive me but I did not understand your referance to "captcha puzzles"
Captcha puzzles was a general question. I used to get words much easier to read. That appears to have changed lately. (You type two distorted words in the box below to post a comment, don’t you?)
I didn’t assume anything on your part Kel Oglan.
Guys, I was appalled the other week when I happened to watch the inauguration ceremony of the new NY governor on CSPAN. Nihat you were mentioning about secular government in the new land, I’d say you’d better off reiterating on that thought after I tell you about this. It was first a rabbi who gave an extensive speech full of religious context thats only followed by that of a equally heavy pious viewpoints of a prominent priest. Then our new governor gave his oath. We are not there yet not even in US. Thats the stinking reality. However, at least by numbers the fundamentalists are not a significant threat for the society, yet we should not forget how they could turn out to be a consistent constituency particularly when it comes to electing presidents. Having said that, I totally agree with you on the unnecessary emphasis of preserving individual religion rights in the name of democracy particularly when it is just the contrary that religion has been dominating our freedom of governance, civil rights and obscuring the democratic tolerances. My point is no ideology can and should tolerate different ideologies if that different ideology’s main goal is to destroy democracy itself. In other words, if the religious ideology or say for a better term, dogmas when and if they come to power they would certainly not tolerate democracy at all. Then why would democracy show any tolerance to turban and its backward thinking behind? No, Buck stops there. And yes, no modesty, I consider myself secular, and if you ask me I’ll proudly say atheist, and also an elite individual of my time. Why so self flattering - I need to. I need to differentiate myself from the flock particularly when the flock is foolishly navigated by AKP shepherds and delusional pseudo-intellects. And yes, we would be much better off if we divert from self-righteous religions that plagued the human race for thousands of years, with millions of death and still counting….
JP, isn’t it interesesting that, in the new world, all those speeches can happen and yet elected officials cannot dare institute religious tests of any kind? American secularism is not an altogether wrong idea for Turkey. I am an atheist, too, I guess. And I know and fear Islamic obsession with controling minute details of everything. I certainly don’t wish to be reduced to dhimmi status in my homeland. But there are noteworthy criticisms leveled against the existing French model.
JP, if you believed in God, you would realize that EVERYONE should have the right to freedom and to practice their beliefs, without judgement. Just like you wish, I’m sure. Once we take away these freedoms, we are no better than terrorists.
Maybe Turkey should consider what our wonderful American President has done by providing funding for religious groups. It has made our Conservative movement stronger and has shown God to many poor people in need of direction and hope. Many of them have also recognized Jesus Christ as their savior. This has helped them through their hard times and made them whole.
It’s too bad you won’t open your mind and heart to a religion, especially when you live in a country that was founded on Christian principles. Even if you were a Muslim, at least you would believe in God.
"JP, if you believed in God, you would realize that EVERYONE should have the right to freedom and to practice their beliefs, without judgement. "
Oh, I know many people wo do believe in God but disagree…