Turkish Politics & Internal Affairs

[Armstrong]

Mate, everyone on this thread presenting their own ideas. Do the same please.

I don't know what the heck people are talking about; one side thinks that wealth can change societal values whereas the other side thinks that progress is synonymous with the banishment of religion in society !

Both are utterly irrational view points; in my humble opinion !

So,what do you think of the statement;the richer the country and its people the more open,modern the society ?

I think modernity is defined by different people in different contexts; I've seen socially progressive countries who aren't that rich and I know of a few for whom wealth didn't change a thing.

On my part; education and critical thinking is what'll make the society progress or at the very least equip them with the right tools to think and ponder over their condition and hopefully come up with ways to move forward.

But then that requires a good educational system which usually requires 'resources' !

 

[Lure]

I think modernity is defined by different people in different contexts; I've seen socially progressive countries who aren't that rich and I know of a few for whom wealth didn't change a thing.

On my part; education and critical thinking is what'll make the society progress or at the very least equip them with the right tools to think and ponder over their condition and hopefully come up with ways to move forward.

But then that requires a good educational system which usually requires 'resources' !

Actually modernity has a solid definition in terms of sociology. Modern society is definitely materialist, positivist (you can put these two like secularism but it's not only that), it's nationalist, it's industrialized and it likes "strong" leaders that can defend national interests. And "modern society" is pretty old actually. It's 150 years old and it's over. We're living in a post modern world now.

In 3rd World we use it like a synonym for someone who is "civil" but it's not like that. "Modern" is an era in Human Development.

 

[T-123456]

Turkey can not be transformed into a true secular society or a religious society without a civil war. Because middle class and working class does not cooperate. They have conflicting culture and world views. Same happened in France, lasted for 200 hundered years, created a civil war a.k.a French Religious Wars. Ended with French Revolution.

This comparison is a bit off,we Turks are a ''acayip'' kind of people,we follow who ever is in charge.
The current middle class is more religious and supports Erdogan,so that wont hold.
Compare Turkiye now to Chile,Argentina in the 70/80s,there will be ''objections'' but never a war because the current situation is so that this government has absolute power to do whatever without any real opposition.
Protest all you want,he will send the police,media is in his hands,those media channels/papers that are not will be censored or shut down.

 

[Armstrong]

Actually modernity has a solid definition in terms of sociology. Modern society is definitely materialist, positivist (you can put these two like secularism but it's not only that), it's nationalist, it's industrialized and it likes "strong" leaders that can defend national interests. And "modern society" is pretty old actually. It's 150 years old and it's over. We're living in a post modern world now.

In 3rd World we use it like a synonym for someone who is "civil" but it's not like that. "Modern" is an era in Human Development.

I wasn't talking about the nomenclature used in sociology but rather what is 'modern and progressive' in a society, in individuals, in the outlook of life and about life etc. varying from person to person because they are, after all, completely normative things.

 

[Lure]

This comparison is a bit off,we Turks are a ''acayip'' kind of people,we follow who ever is in charge.
The current middle class is more religious and supports Erdogan,so that wont hold.
Compare Turkiye now to Chile,Argentina in the 70/80s,there will be ''objections'' but never a war because the current situation is so that this government has absolute power to do whatever without any real opposition.
Protest all you want,he will send the police,media is in his hands,those media channels/papers that are not will be censored or shut down.

No actually. It's the complete opposite. Turkish middle class is the one that is secular. I've read a study somewhere about the correlation of educational background and voter share of political parties. Every 1 out of 2 university graduates vote for CHP. That makes CHP the party of middle class. However If you consider primary school or middle school graduates Erdogan's votes are high. Those people are the working class and they hate the middle class of Turkey.

In Gezi Protests, I remember watching a video. A candidate doctor going to medical school was discussing with some random guy about the events. The guy was like "you go back to your school and finish it, politics is not your business". The guy didn't show any respect to med school student at all. Actually he was shouting at the student's face. That's the real norm of our society today. Working class is completely shorn from the middle class and their world views are completely different. Not only different but they are conflicting.

What I've meant was not possibility of a civil war. I don't expect a civil war either. But that conflict between middle class and working class will definitely go on for a long long time. That will make Turkey lose a lot of time.

 

[usernameless]

I think before we can make a statement, we should first decide which developed country we take as a comparing factor.
If we take (especially west and north) Europe, we can clearly see a pattern between wealth and the society rejecting religion. At the same time there is the US which is the richest, yet also its society is relatively still religious, way more than most European countries to say the least. 'God bless America' and 'In god we trust' are also well known phrases by US presidents. Both the US and the EU (most of them) are developed.
Can we then conclude whether religion halts progress/wealth, thus keeping the society backward? yes and no.
Yes, if the head of the state explicitly uses religious references to stop scientific progress, which in turn harm the economy. I don't see Turkey halting it's scientific and technological output now, never will, nor do i believe that introducing mandatory religion classes or Ottoman language classes will make the children braindead for the rest of their years (of course it would have been better if this time was put in actual subjects).

Education and wealth brings materialism along, which in turn eventually will lead to distancing from religion, because in many cases (my observation) religion comes to mind when people are in a pinch (poor, hopeless, ill etc.). On the contrary, in general, living a rich/good life makes you think more about the present and what you can achieve here. Turkish population too will be affected by this pattern once wealth increases.

Another important aspect, I think, is religion itself. Religion is much more ingrained/exposed in Turkish culture. It will be harder/impossible to bring Turkish society's religious level to that, like, of Netherlands, Sweden, Norway etc. I expect Turkey's society to be like that of Spain and Italy. For some reason these latter countries are developed yet quite religious among the European countries.

Therefore, in my opinion, Turkey and its society will not become more religious as long as the economy and science/technological output keep growing through the decades.

 

[Hakan]

Everyone needs to have a work hard mentallity, people need to stop tricking each other over dumb stuff just to get some small gain, people have to be helpful to each other, people have to do stuff right not half assed, people have to stand up against corruption by not getting involved, when people see the weak getting abused they have to step in and do something instead of thinking "bosver, bana ne".

These are basic things that everyone can agree with no matter what mentallity they have.

Also turks involve politics in a ton of things that arn't even related to politics. You go to a soccer game and when you come out you thought you were at a political rally for example.

Involving politics in every single thing just brings up the divisions among people 24/7. Me and my family would be considered religous but we never talk about politics with our neighbors in turkey and we get along just fine. For example one of my neighbors is alevi, another guy reads aydinlik (i get it for him from the bakal), some other neighbors are " religous" but i see their sons hanging out with chicks, we arn't too close with them but anyway the point is that if you don't talk politics and don't try to subtly hint political things then you won 't have any problems. Everyone works together, everyone goes to each others houses and drink cay together, we break our fasts together, we go to bayram namaz together, no matter what political thing people associate themselves with. In short we live in peace.

With regard to kurds i want to say a few things. I have alot of kurdish friends so i get to hear some of their experiences, anyway one guy goes to his military service and they are looking at him suspicously for the first few days . They ask where are you from, the guys like mardin then they are trying to act like he might be pkk and the guys like what the hell do you think im doing here at the military? After that they were cool with the guy.

Another one of my kurdish friends was saying that the nationalists always treat him differently because he is kurdish basically they look down on him. So some people in turkey need to change their mentallity regarding kurds so that way they feel accepted.

Another thing i wanted to point out was that people in turkey put too much emphasis on looks. Everyone is trying to get the newest iphone or galaxy, people are even buying fake iphones so it looks like they have a real one. People are trying to get name brand clothes like nike, gucci, armani etc. its like if you don't have that stuff your a nobody. The clothing manufacturers are busy making fake nike and adidass crap instead of coming up with their own quality brands so that they can become a company like nike or adidass one day.

 

[Lure]

I think before we can make a statement, we should first decide which developed country we take as a comparing factor.
If we take (especially west and north) Europe, we can clearly see a pattern between wealth and the society rejecting religion. At the same time there is the US which is the richest, yet also its society is relatively still religious, way more than most European countries to say the least. 'God bless America' and 'In god we trust' are also well known phrases by US presidents. Both the US and the EU (most of them) are developed.

Well first of all we should define which ones are the Advanced Economies in the world. Being rich is not the only prerequisite for being an advanced economy. You need to be both a producing and a consuming nation in order to become one. And if you look at the pattern of Advanced Economies you will observe that technological development is a must to fuel the military-industrial complex that you build. US being a religious nation compared to Europe is supported by many researchers in the field. However there is one thing to keep in mind. US is a protestant nation. That makes a huge difference compared to Catholicism. Besides 15% of the US population regards themselves as "not affiliated to any religion" and 5% is considering themselves as "convinced atheist". That's a huge rate compared to Turkey.

The difference between being a Protestant and Catholic is rejecting the Moral Politics of Vatican Church that was imposed to all Christian society back 16th century. Many Calvinists ran from Europe to America -the new Continent- just to stay away from the grimness of the Catholic church and it's affiliated organizations like Franciscans or Dominicans.

Also founding fathers of US made it clear that there will be a "wall" between the church and the state. As far as I remember that was the exact analogy that they've used. That means that US was built on a secular foundation. However there is one issue. Compared to UK -which was never ever a secular state and always rejected to become one- US is more religious.

Richard Dawkins points about this paradox as UK being not a secular country and promoting an "official" church (Church of England) and Queen being the head of the church, makes religion an official boring "stuff" in UK. However in US political parties should be secular and this makes religion unconstitutional which makes religion a lot more exciting for the people. I know it's counter intuitive but it's a thesis worths thinking about.

@LeveragedBuyout I don't know about your stance on discussing the religious issues since you mostly devote your posts on geostrategy and economy. However it would be very nice if you'd like to join and give us more information about the religion in US society.

Can we then conclude whether religion halts progress/wealth, thus keeping the society backward? yes and no.
Yes, if the head of the state explicitly uses religious references to stop scientific progress, which in turn harm the economy. I don't see Turkey halting it's scientific and technological output now, never will, nor do i believe that introducing mandatory religion classes or Ottoman language classes will make the children braindead for the rest of their years (of course it would have been better if this time was put in actual subjects).

Religion stops the scientific development is an ancient discussion. That has some relevancy today. But in 16th century Europe it had a lot more relevancy. Today religious lobbies can effect government decisions about certain types of science like Biotechnology, Genetics even Medicine (I remember stem cell controversies in US).

However in the past Religious organizations were interfering to a great portion of science from Astronomy to Physics.

I think the most important thing is the motivators for scientific development. If religion gives a motivation for it, I can be the most religious person on Earth. It's like let's make stem cell research in the name of God. And I like that God If religion demotivates you from scientific development, than I'm against that type of religion. It's like "don't think about the phenomenons in nature, everything is in Quran" type of being religious. One of my religious friends told me that according to Islam hard work is the most important worship to God. If such religious orders motivates people to work harder and achieve more religion becomes a very important thing for our society and I like it.

Education and wealth brings materialism along, which in turn eventually will lead to distancing from religion, because in many cases (my observation) religion comes to mind when people are in a pinch (poor, hopeless, ill etc.). On the contrary, in general, living a rich/good life makes you think more about the present and what you can achieve here. Turkish population too will be affected by this pattern once wealth increases.

I've told it before but I need to press on it. Wealth, Production and Consumption. Only wealth won't bring you anywhere.

Another important aspect, I think, is religion itself. Religion is much more ingrained/exposed in Turkish culture. It will be harder/impossible to bring Turkish society's religious level to that, like, of Netherlands, Sweden, Norway etc. I expect Turkey's society to be like that of Spain and Italy. For some reason these latter countries are developed yet quite religious among the European countries.

Therefore, in my opinion, Turkey and its society will not become more religious as long as the economy and science/technological output keep growing through the decades.

Yeah that's true. Religion is important for Turks. But which religion, we should ask. People may believe in God no problem. People can worship to their God, no problem. However if people starts to reconcile religion with ethics and moral a lot and see religion as a monopoly in moral, than that's a huge problem. Eventually people tend to impose their own moral values to other people by using state as a tool and that makes things very complicated.

We should check for our own religious interpretations. That's all I'm saying. Religion should be a motivator for progress and should become more individualist.

 

[Nefer]

Final Verdict : That secular vs religious discussion will go on forever like a vicious circle and won't end up anywhere

Nah it will end, in Turkiye's case give or take 4 to 8 years.

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

@Lure As expected, you've already done an excellent job covering the major reasons why America is exceptional (separation between church and state, and yet still unusually religious compared to other advanced economies). I would only add two factors to help explain the American situation:

1) Christianity is fractured in a way that Islam is not. Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Protestantism, Anglicanism, and within Protestantism, Adventists, Anabaptists, Baptists, Calvinists, Evangelicals, Lutherans, Methodists, Pentecostals, and more. This highly competitive marketplace for ideas prevents any one denomination from, well, dominating, and thus forcing society down a unidirectional path that may not suit it well (at least economically or in terms of scientific progress). This relates back to your point about the attraction of the taboo vs. the dullness of officially sanctioned religion: each denomination needs to compete for a congregation, so they reinvent themselves to be attractive to the populace, in the hope of gaining adherents. So in a sense, religion plays its part in advancing American society in a way that isn't present in other countries.

2) Federalism. Not only does the United States have an constitutional policy of separation between church and state, we have intentionally fractured and devolved powers to the states (and from the states to cities and towns). So just like in point #1, each locality or state must compete for denizens, and tailor themselves to the interests of various groups. That's why, over time, the South has generally emerged as a more religious region (at least for Christians), and those who seek a more religious lifestyle feel more comfortable there, and migrate there. On the other hand, the North offers a more secular lifestyle to those who prefer that. In an extreme case, Utah remains the focus of a single religion, Mormonism, and accommodates their values (the dearth of alcohol in Salt Lake City is still jarring to me).

It is my understanding (admittedly shallow) that Turkey is a far more centralized state (is it true that governors are appointed, not elected?), and so it is far easier, and far more damaging, when the center pushes for a renewed emphasis on religion. Turkey seems to have less of a systemic check on such moves by the center, which is why an Ataturk can unilaterally declare secularism, and an Erdogan can subtly undermine that, without much opposition from the various regions of Turkey. Anyway, I'm speaking far beyond my area of competence here, so apologies if I have mis-characterized Turkey.

I don't believe that religion, per se, is a bad thing. I do believe that religion in the hands of the state is a bad thing. So like @Hakan implied, as long as it is kept to oneself, there are few issues. The problem is, from my perspective, Erdogan's increasing attempts to merge religion back into the public sphere. That is a problem, because then the secular preference may be regarded as deviant or even illegal at some point (as happens in most overtly religious societies), and how can society progress when it rejects diversity of thought?

KSA was raised before, but I think a better example is Iran, which was once upon a time a mostly secular country, rapidly converging with the advanced economies, but is now stagnant. It's hard for me to believe that anyone would wish to emulate that kind of transition, but there you have it. Think what Iran could be if its secular society were free to innovate and advance without worrying about the mullahs.

 

[usernameless]

Well first of all we should define which ones are the Advanced Economies in the world. Being rich is not the only prerequisite for being an advanced economy. You need to be both a producing and a consuming nation in order to become one. And if you look at the pattern of Advanced Economies you will observe that technological development is a must to fuel the military-industrial complex that you build. US being a religious nation compared to Europe is supported by many researchers in the field. However there is one thing to keep in mind. US is a protestant nation. That makes a huge difference compared to Catholicism. Besides 15% of the US population regards themselves as "not affiliated to any religion" and 5% is considering themselves as "convinced atheist". That's a huge rate compared to Turkey.

The difference between being a Protestant and Catholic is rejecting the Moral Politics of Vatican Church that was imposed to all Christian society back 16th century. Many Calvinists ran from Europe to America -the new Continent- just to stay away from the grimness of the Catholic church and it's affiliated organizations like Franciscans or Dominicans.

Also founding fathers of US made it clear that there will be a "wall" between the church and the state. As far as I remember that was the exact analogy that they've used. That means that US was built on a secular foundation. However there is one issue. Compared to UK -which was never ever a secular state and always rejected to become one- US is more religious.

Richard Dawkins points about this paradox as UK being not a secular country and promoting an "official" church (Church of England) and Queen being the head of the church, makes religion an official boring "stuff" in UK. However in US political parties should be secular and this makes religion unconstitutional which makes religion a lot more exciting for the people. I know it's counter intuitive but it's a thesis worths thinking about.

@LeveragedBuyout I don't know about your stance on discussing the religious issues since you mostly devote your posts on geostrategy and economy. However it would be very nice if you'd like to join and give us more information about the religion in US society.



Religion stops the scientific development is an ancient discussion. That has some relevancy today. But in 16th century Europe it had a lot more relevancy. Today religious lobbies can effect government decisions about certain types of science like Biotechnology, Genetics even Medicine (I remember stem cell controversies in US).

However in the past Religious organizations were interfering to a great portion of science from Astronomy to Physics.

I think the most important thing is the motivators for scientific development. If religion gives a motivation for it, I can be the most religious person on Earth. It's like let's make stem cell research in the name of God. And I like that God If religion demotivates you from scientific development, than I'm against that type of religion. It's like "don't think about the phenomenons in nature, everything is in Quran" type of being religious. One of my religious friends told me that according to Islam hard work is the most important worship to God. If such religious orders motivates people to work harder and achieve more religion becomes a very important thing for our society and I like it.



I've told it before but I need to press on it. Wealth, Production and Consumption. Only wealth won't bring you anywhere.



Yeah that's true. Religion is important for Turks. But which religion, we should ask. People may believe in God no problem. People can worship to their God, no problem. However if people starts to reconcile religion with ethics and moral a lot and see religion as a monopoly in moral, than that's a huge problem. Eventually people tend to impose their own moral values to other people by using state as a tool and that makes things very complicated.

We should check for our own religious interpretations. That's all I'm saying. Religion should be a motivator for progress and should become more individualist.

you expanded nicely, bro. Speaking strictly about terms of religion, politics, economy and society related to Turkey, I think once wealth and well being increases, Turkey's population slowly will become more liberal, atheism/agnosticism and individualism will increase, religion will slowly start to become more nominal-ish, like in the west. Of course science, production, education must continue to improve. Turkey doesnt rely on natural resources, so hard work, creativity and innovation is going to be needed for Turkey to progress and achieve a more serious level of economy. I am not talking about the coming 5 or 10 years, but a good 50 years or so. It seems the current akp tries hard to keep people conscious of religion and the past, but as long as people's education, wealth (through hard work, science, production) and well being continue to increase, people should start to get less interested in themes like that of akp. As akp Taner Yildiz stated some years ago (quote); according to polls the more educated people are, the less votes we receive from them.
I personally believe that after some years/decade of quarreling between akp and others, things will become more stable once education and economical indicators have increased more and a middle path has been sighted (provided the opposition forming a more serious block before akp goes on even grander adventures).

Exactly, that's why I can't understand people who explicitly strictly use the claim that religion keeps people stupid and backward. There are enough religious people on this forum alone that are well informed and educated. I'm by no means a believer, but as long as an individual finds motivation in a religion and works well, he/she's welcome. For that reason, for example, I found the move to abandon the ban on headscarves in Turkey a necessary move in order to stimulate the women who didn't want to or wasn't permitted to study or work. More women should join the workforce too, Turkey has a relative very negative gender workforce ratio, if i recall correctly.

Agreed, the state shouldn't be used as a tool to impose moral values, but tell that to the people (including some/many of the politicians) of Turkey who have made it a sport to bash each other over their political views instead of finding a middle path and work on developing the country first. Some people on this forum/youtube/tv channels/newspapers etc. also represent this bitterness, you're either this or that, with us or against us. while the losers are we as a nation.

It's hard to predict, nor did i do much reading about such matters, so i might be wrong all together.

 

[Lure]

It is my understanding (admittedly shallow) that Turkey is a far more centralized state (is it true that governors are appointed, not elected?), and so it is far easier, and far more damaging, when the center pushes for a renewed emphasis on religion. Turkey seems to have less of a systemic check on such moves by the center, which is why an Ataturk can unilaterally declare secularism, and an Erdogan can subtly undermine that, without much opposition from the various regions of Turkey. Anyway, I'm speaking far beyond my area of competence here, so apologies if I have mis-characterized Turkey.

I don't believe that religion, per se, is a bad thing. I do believe that religion in the hands of the state is a bad thing. So like @Hakan implied, as long as it is kept to oneself, there are few issues. The problem is, from my perspective, Erdogan's increasing attempts to merge religion back into the public sphere. That is a problem, because then the secular preference may be regarded as deviant or even illegal at some point (as happens in most overtly religious societies), and how can society progress when it rejects the diversity of thought?

KSA was raised before, but I think a better example is Iran, which was once upon a time a mostly secular country, rapidly converging with the advanced economies, but is now stagnant. It's hard for me to believe that anyone would wish to emulate that kind of transition, but there you have it. Think what Iran could be if its secular society were free to innovate and advance without worrying about the mullahs.

Hey Thanks a lot for the input. Turkey is a unitary state by it's constitution, therefore central government is extremely strong. What you've said about the city governors are being appointed by the central government is true. It's not only that but also city governors are subject to the rule of Ministry of Internal Affairs. Meaning they are not only appointed by the central government but also get direct orders from it.

There is one more difference about the local government. In US city police chief is assigned by the Mayor. And mayor is responsible for the crime rate of the city and in some cities (where the crime is a problem) the discussions about crime rate can be top priority of the voters. In Turkey city police chief is again assigned by the Ministry of Internal Affairs. I've looked at many studies and non-terrorism related crime rate is never a top priority for Turkish citizens.

Also there is the tax thing. In US state government, federal government and municipal governments collect different taxes and generate their own income. In Turkey all the tax is collected by the central government and "distributed" to the mayors. As you might suggest some cities are "favored" by the central government sometimes.

And sometimes you can see that central government makes infrastructure projects in some cities. It's also a kind of "favoring". For example do you know a mayor that goes to White House and demands a "subaway route" from the president? In Turkey we may have such situations. And it's not just the funding. They demand Ministry of Transportation to do the job.

As for the foundation of modern Turkey (decleration of secularism) part well I need to go through history a little bit. I will go way back because I love this history . Maybe you'll love it too. By the way I'll be very berief because it's actually a very long discussion. Let's start in chronological order of course;
- Ethnic nationalism starts to cripple Ottoman Empire and most parts of Balkan territories starts to unrest. Beginning of 19th century.
- Tanzimat Ferman (Imperial Edict of the Rose House) is announced by Abdülmecid in 1839. Ottoman modernization period officialy started. In that period many officials and students from military to medicine, from architecture to science goes to Europe for education and to understand the system of Europe and also to understand why the Ottoman Empire was not functioning anymore like it's used to.
- Young Ottomans (a secret society) emerges in 1865 mostly by the returned professionals and students from Europe. They taught Ottoman Empite needed a parliament that will rule by Islamic law. They've imagined something like today's Iran. They were Ottoman Nationalist and promoting being an Ottoman as a National identity.
- After numerous events, problems, fighting etc. Young Ottomans forms the First Constitutional Era of Ottoman Empire in 1876 under Abdulhamid II's rule.
- First Constitutional Era lasts for around 18 months and in 1878 absolute monarchy returns with the thin excuse of having a war with Russians.
- Right after that Young Turks movement starts within the intellectuals of the Empire who are educated in Europe just like Young Ottomans. Unlike Young Ottomans, Young Turks were not a secret society and they were having a pretty public altercation with the Sultan.
- In 1889 İttihat ve Terakki Cemiyeti (Committee of Union and Progress) is founded as a secret society inside the Young Turks movement. Many military officers and professionals (especially doctors) had joined to the society. The aim was founding a Turkish nation-state and abolishing the Ottoman system completely. Ataturk was also a member, but left the society afterwards.
- In 1908 Committee of Union and Progress (CUP) overthrowns Abdülhamid with military coup. This is called as the Young Turk Revolution. In 1912 we've made our first multiple party elections. It's called the Election of the Clubs. As it can be understood from the name, the elections did not go very well And CUP (transforming into a political party) won the elections.
- 1914 the leader of CUP Enver Paşa who was extremely nationalist and -had a very soft spot for Germans - enters WW1 as an ally of Germany. (But Germans tricked Ottomans on that one. 2 German warships being chased by UK Fleet comes to Istanbul and immediately we put Ottoman flags on them and told UK that we've bought the ships and if they attack the ships we will defend them. Then UK fleet says ok and returns. The ships are not actually commanded by Ottomans. Their entire crew is German. Than after UK leaves, German ships go to Black Sea without notifying the Ottoman officials and bombarding Russian costs. Russians sees the Ottoman flag on the ships and regards this as a declerations of war)
- After WW1 Ottoman Empire completely collapses, then Turkish Nationalism is spread through the Anatolian people to protect Anatolia from enemy invasion and our War of Independence starts.
- After war of independence, the revolutions start to form a type of unitary, secular government and a nation-state. French system was seen as a model when forming the new state.

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

Hey Thanks a lot for the input. Turkey is a unitary state by it's constitution, therefore central government is extremely strong. What you've said about the city governors are being appointed by the central government is true. It's not only that but also city governors are subject to the rule of Ministry of Internal Affairs. Meaning they are not only appointed by the central government but also get direct orders from it.

There is one more difference about the local government. In US city police chief is assigned by the Mayor. And mayor is responsible for the crime rate of the city and in some cities (where the crime is a problem) the discussions about crime rate can be top priority of the voters. In Turkey city police chief is again assigned by the Ministry of Internal Affairs. I've looked at many studies and non-terrorism related crime rate is never a top priority for Turkish citizens.

Also there is the tax thing. In US state government, federal government and municipal governments collect different taxes and generate their own income. In Turkey all the tax is collected by the central government and "distributed" to the mayors. As you might suggest some cities are "favored" by the central government sometimes.

And sometimes you can see that central government makes infrastructure projects in some cities. It's also a kind of "favoring". For example do you know a mayor that goes to White House and demands a "subaway route" from the president? In Turkey we may have such situations. And it's not just the funding. They demand Ministry of Transportation to do the job.

As for the foundation of modern Turkey (decleration of secularism) part well I need to go through history a little bit. I will go way back because I love this history . Maybe you'll love it too. By the way I'll be very berief because it's actually a very long discussion. Let's start in chronological order of course;
- Ethnic nationalism starts to cripple Ottoman Empire and most parts of Balkan territories starts to unrest. Beginning of 19th century.
- Tanzimat Ferman (Imperial Edict of the Rose House) is announced by Abdülmecid in 1839. Ottoman modernization period officialy started. In that period many officials and students from military to medicine, from architecture to science goes to Europe for education and to understand the system of Europe and also to understand why the Ottoman Empire was not functioning anymore like it's used to.
- Young Ottomans (a secret society) emerges in 1865 mostly by the returned professionals and students from Europe. They taught Ottoman Empite needed a parliament that will rule by Islamic law. They've imagined something like today's Iran. They were Ottoman Nationalist and promoting being an Ottoman as a National identity.
- After numerous events, problems, fighting etc. Young Ottomans forms the First Constitutional Era of Ottoman Empire in 1876 under Abdulhamid II's rule.
- First Constitutional Era lasts for around 18 months and in 1878 absolute monarchy returns with the thin excuse of having a war with Russians.
- Right after that Young Turks movement starts within the intellectuals of the Empire who are educated in Europe just like Young Ottomans. Unlike Young Ottomans, Young Turks were not a secret society and they were having a pretty public altercation with the Sultan.
- In 1889 İttihat ve Terakki Cemiyeti (Committee of Union and Progress) is founded as a secret society inside the Young Turks movement. Many military officers and professionals (especially doctors) had joined to the society. The aim was founding a Turkish nation-state and abolishing the Ottoman system completely. Ataturk was also a member, but left the society afterwards.
- In 1908 Committee of Union and Progress (CUP) overthrowns Abdülhamid with military coup. This is called as the Young Turk Revolution. In 1912 we've made our first multiple party elections. It's called the Election of the Clubs. As it can be understood from the name, the elections did not go very well And CUP (transforming into a political party) won the elections.
- 1914 the leader of CUP Enver Paşa who was extremely nationalist and -had a very soft spot for Germans - enters WW1 as an ally of Germany. (But Germans tricked Ottomans on that one. 2 German warships being chased by UK Fleet comes to Istanbul and immediately we put Ottoman flags on them and told UK that we've bought the ships and if they attack the ships we will defend them. Then UK fleet says ok and returns. The ships are not actually commanded by Ottomans. Their entire crew is German. Than after UK leaves, German ships go to Black Sea without notifying the Ottoman officials and bombarding Russian costs. Russians sees the Ottoman flag on the ships and regards this as a declerations of war)
- After WW1 Ottoman Empire completely collapses, then Turkish Nationalism is spread through the Anatolian people to protect Anatolia from enemy invasion and our War of Independence starts.
- After war of independence, the revolutions start to form a type of unitary, secular government and a nation-state. French system was seen as a model when forming the new state.

Great overview, thank you. I have always been fascinated by the 50 year period between 1870-1920, as the world remade itself into what we regard as the modern era (especially through the radical changes in America, Germany, Russia, Japan, Turkey, China, and the fraying of the empires). I appreciate the crash course in modern Turkish history, and it explains a lot. Would you regard the secular period of Turkey as an unstable aberration, then, with the current changes simply a swinging of the pendulum back towards the median? If so, it will probably take much longer than expected for the AKP era to pass.

By the way, I wish I could nominate you to be a Think Tank Analyst. Your posts are uniformly superb.

 

[Lure]

Great overview, thank you. I have always been fascinated by the 50 year period between 1870-1920, as the world remade itself into what we regard as the modern era (especially through the radical changes in America, Germany, Russia, Japan, Turkey, China, and the fraying of the empires). I appreciate the crash course in modern Turkish history, and it explains a lot. Would you regard the secular period of Turkey as an unstable aberration, then, with the current changes simply a swinging of the pendulum back towards the median? If so, it will probably take much longer than expected for the AKP era to pass.

By the way, I wish I could nominate you to be a Think Tank Analyst. Your posts are uniformly superb.

Hey thanks a lot

Well your question should be approached from different angles. I don't want to be faced with the grim replies of the fellow Turkish members here but, from the mid 19th century to early 20th century a portion of people (intellectuals, professionals, middle class etc.) tried to transform Ottoman Empire into a modern nation-state. After 1923 we've got what we've wanted. However we've drawn the wrong borders after the War of Independence.

The development is step by step. You don't make quantum leaps. It's very rare. Everyone who seeks quantum leaps should remember The Great Leap Forward disaster. We weren't able to completely transform the pre-modern society to modern one. Because we weren't able to become a true nation state. In order to become a nation state we should've introduced the notion of nationalism first. We did that on paper. But in reality the story is different. You need a common form of cultural values to become a true nation. If we are talking about the French form of nationalism of course.

Ziya Gökalp who was one of the most influential figures in the formation of Turkish National identity (and ironically he was kurdish) was stating that eastern and southeastern parts of Anatolia is extremely different than western parts both culturally and linguistically. By the was Ziya Gökalp rejected both pan-Islamism and Ottomanism. Found both of them very superficial. He was a modern era intellectual who was seeking to form a true national identity. Ziya Gökalp suggested assimilation of East and South East Anatolia. However in order to be able to achieve assimilation itself, the country should have a very strong education system that should cover it's entire territory.

Since Turkey did not have enough resources to achieve this (a great deal of teachers did not want to go there anyway) there is not a form of common cultural values in Turkey. Modern Turkey was able to supress this by force. However what could post-modern Turkey do? Without being a true modern nation?

1970's was the era of student movements in Turkey just like US and the rest of the world. They were the first generations raised with post-modern values. They were prefering individualism over nationalism. As Turkey passes that treshold of post modernism this freedom environment revived the Kurdish issues that were solved by force back in 20's and 30's. Than in late 70's PKK was formed. Starting from 84 they've armed and Turkey fought an ugly bloody war. In this era Kemalizm lost a lot of prestige in the eyes of intellectuals. Many intellectuals started to consider that "modern era" ideology as something that we should get rid of.

Than AKP comes in. Uses it's thesis as some kind of a mixture of pre-modern and post-modent and definitely anti-modern many intellectual actually liked the idea at first. Later it's gone out of control and those supporters had started to oppose.

I mean in a nutshell, I do think that Turkey was a country that hosted both pre-modern and modern portions in it's foundation. Pre-modern portions were not able to be modernized (or abandoned) and than here we go trying to become post modern on this tenuous foundation.

I've seen a map somewhere that classifies Turkey into 3 regions. West, Middle and East. In the West MHP+CHP (MHP is the nationalist party) had higher votes than AKP. In the Middle they are the same. In the East CHP+MHP only accounts for 10% of the voters and AKP still gets 50% from conservative Kurds and Turks in the East. So you can make the calculation from this picture I guess.

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

I've seen a map somewhere that classifies Turkey into 3 regions. West, Middle and East. In the West MHP+CHP (MHP is the nationalist party) had higher votes than AKP. In the Middle they are the same. In the East CHP+MHP only accounts for 10% of the voters and AKP still gets 50% from conservative Kurds and Turks in the East. So you can make the calculation from this picture I guess.

Can I infer from this that the only reason why CHP won in the past was because the state and the military suppressed the voters in the East (either directly, or indirectly by banning parties that they would have preferred... until AKP was allowed to run)? If so, doesn't that mean that the AKP will govern for the foreseeable future, since it appears to be the East that is driving the electoral outcomes?

If AKP is destined to rule for the medium-term, how do you see the contradictions you mentioned (the non-assimilation of the various regions) resolving themselves? Forcible dominance by the East over the rest? Federalism? Partition?