What is going on in Turkey?!

[shahinc]

I personally don't think they need to be banned Deerouz jaan, but they should not be able to touch a secular constitution once it has been enacted. And please let me clarify that the whole drawing up of the constitution in Iran and Egypt was seriously flawed - the constitution is NOT meant to be a document put to a referendum - it is intended to protect the rights of all the citizens, the minorities being the most important ones and in that sense, a popular vote on a referendum will not achieve what a constitution is intended to achieve.

Once a good secular constitution has been put in place, an Islamist party (if elected) can certainly try to enact new laws within the framework of that constitution. There is nothing wrong with that and that's like any conservative party in the West trying to enact conservative minded statutes. The most important part of the equation is that there be an independent judiciary where any of the new laws can be challenged if they override the constitution, the same way the process would work in the west. I actually don't think the process is working as well as it should in the West either, but at least it's on the right track.

The only other self-correcting mechanism that I would place in the system (currently missing on many levels in the west) is a small committee of 12 non-partisan judges that could actually impeach the PM or president instead of the parliament, based on complaints on violations of the constitution. With those three things in place, the system is pretty fool proof. In Turkey's case, this committee would have been able to simply impeach Erdogan even before the protests broke out on the constitutionality of his restrictions on the media and certainly after the protests broke out on the constitutionality of his actions against freedom of assembly. This type of committee of judges would be very useful in cases of corruption as well, so we wouldn't have to deal with the conservative government in Canada for example, sticking it to us for another two years without any recourse (and we didn't have to deal with the Liberals either about a decade ago).

Bi-Honar Aziz, I think your whole argument here is flawed because you failed to recognize the difficultly of writing that " IDEAL CONSTITUTION".
In a society that has Islamist parties and ... who will have the power to write that constitution ? How will that constitution be written ?

 

[Playboy]

now that we are into the comic territory on this topic might as well enjoy the real thing:http://youtu.be/RcvvKSVfjBA

 

[byebyenow]

Neither Ataturk or Reza shah banned Islamic practices as a whole or limited the ability of Muslims to preach and influence.

you have to look at it in reality perspective, there was nobody powerful enough in Iran at that time or even today to ban Islamic practices or any religion practices. Stalin and Ming both tried this and failed miserably and were looked as devil going against god. Reza Shah did enough to go against Akhunds which actually fire back half century later when Islamist and Akhunds took over the Revolution. I agree 100% with BT, religious structures had to be disconnected to state and to do that you have to limit their financial power, that is the reality of political world as history shows us. Europe had to go through this to get rid of Catholic Church power and Parliments in much of Europe took over Land and Financial power from Church. During much of Qajar, Akhunds had a strong financial and social structure and Darbar or Kingdom knew this power structures and Shah and Akhund hand to hand ruled Iran since Safavids, Akhund and Shah had to make peace together for much of Qajar but Reza Shah attacked the Mosque very harshly that is known as terror,however he failed to slowly minimize their financial power and take over their social services which means creating Agencies and Institutions that we know today which are social services such as welfare and such.
Banning any type of religion practice is very harsh to the point that could be looked as terror, what Reza Shah did in Goharshad Mosque is not right and is as ugly as what IR does today. This so called "war on Terror" also is turning out to be war on Muslims which is not fair and will fire back 100 times worse. If you go to war against any type of religion, the extremist of that religion will get more powerful as people will hide behind them and seek for help behind this type of groups.
However if you help to create the environment that people can feel they can trust the government beside their church then you already are on the right path. If government provide the social welfare structure that could challenged the one in the Mosque and started to slowly limiting their financial power by slowly taxing them, then we could have got rid of this Mosque influence in few decades.
But Reza Shah attacked them by banning practicing some of their customs in total ignorance that most people at the time trusted the Mosque much more than Darbar, and actually his attack was also an attack on mass people's way of life. Instead of having a long term plan to minimize Mosque power and give more power to parliament and get the trust of people back to Darbar by creating social services he could have become much more successful to modernize Iran. Unfortunately Reza Shah was also an absolute power and he wanted all the power to himself and didn't care much about people's need which most of population was in poverty. Instead, he attacked the Mosque and people very harshly with his troops and instead of massive social welfare services to challenge Mosque he spent expensive project to modernize Iran very quickly, maybe too quick, that actually didn't benefited the people at the time as much as Social welfare services could have. I have to say he does get credit for modernizing Iran and building rail roads which was used for many years after him in Iran and sadly some of his projects is still used today because of lack of government spending on public, but his ideas and his dreams was not possible in his circumstances and only a long plan and creating free environment for people could have let him to minimize Mosque power. Unfortunately every Shah didn't want to loose some of their power and that's why people never trusted Darbar and trusted Akhunds much more because they were among people while Darbar always extracted wealth from people.
IMO practicing any religion should never gets banned that itself is against the core of democracy, however we should not allow religion and state gets mixed up. Even in a country like USA the bible belt has a great impact to American policies so even in today's world in a country like USA, religion is still a very big issue and can have its own impact on American politics but of course nothing is like our own Iran which Mosque is the state itself.

 

[byebyenow]

What you are saying sounds good on paper but do you really think the Islamic Authorities, Akhoonds and Masjed will allow that to happen !!! The problem with your approach is ignoring the militant and violent nature of Islam and how it can react to such a treatment by the state ...

Actually Reza Shah troops were strong enough to crush any of them and it was his troops that used the nature of violence, the problem was Reza Shah attacked people instead of Mosque power structures. And if you slowly minimized their financial power and put yourself in good side of people then it could have been very possible.

 

[byebyenow]

True; maybe it is desperation getting to me lately. However, don't you agree that overall we Muslims have very little appreciation for freedom and diversity of opinion. Even our moderates more focus on 'respect' and 'tolerance' than 'freedom' and 'rights'. Lately I have been thinking perhaps that's because we need a crash course in what persecution and suffering mean. As I said as a training camp , not as tit-for-tat or revenge.

I agree, we mostly have no tolerance to other opinions. I think it is not about being Muslim or Jew but we as culture, we never had as free society and government as some western countries. We haven't developed that culture yet to be very tolerable to other people and opinions.

 

[byebyenow]

I personally don't think they need to be banned Deerouz jaan, but they should not be able to touch a secular constitution once it has been enacted. And please let me clarify that the whole drawing up of the constitution in Iran and Egypt was seriously flawed - the constitution is NOT meant to be a document put to a referendum - it is intended to protect the rights of all the citizens, the minorities being the most important ones and in that sense, a popular vote on a referendum will not achieve what a constitution is intended to achieve.

Once a good secular constitution has been put in place, an Islamist party (if elected) can certainly try to enact new laws within the framework of that constitution. There is nothing wrong with that and that's like any conservative party in the West trying to enact conservative minded statutes. The most important part of the equation is that there be an independent judiciary where any of the new laws can be challenged if they override the constitution, the same way the process would work in the west. I actually don't think the process is working as well as it should in the West either, but at least it's on the right track.

The only other self-correcting mechanism that I would place in the system (currently missing on many levels in the west) is a small committee of 12 non-partisan judges that could actually impeach the PM or president instead of the parliament, based on complaints on violations of the constitution. With those three things in place, the system is pretty fool proof. In Turkey's case, this committee would have been able to simply impeach Erdogan even before the protests broke out on the constitutionality of his restrictions on the media and certainly after the protests broke out on the constitutionality of his actions against freedom of assembly. This type of committee of judges would be very useful in cases of corruption as well, so we wouldn't have to deal with the conservative government in Canada for example, sticking it to us for another two years without any recourse (and we didn't have to deal with the Liberals either about a decade ago).

great post!
I wish as it works to prevent religious influence into the state it would have worked as well to regulate corporation power and expansion.

 

[byebyenow]

Bi-Honar Aziz, I think your whole argument here is flawed because you failed to recognize the difficultly of writing that " IDEAL CONSTITUTION".
In a society that has Islamist parties and ... who will have the power to write that constitution ? How will that constitution be written ?

Because in all over Muslim countries the Shah or Sultan always failed to serve their people and never gave freedom to people, people were behind their Akhunds not behind their Shah or Amir or whatever...
Another thing in Europe it was parliaments that got strong enough to challenge Church. Parliament in Middle East never was allowed to become powerful because of kingdoms. Middle Eastern states were too centralized and people unlike European didn't have enough options to become wealthy (discovery of America gave a lot of options for European to become wealth), because of this two main reason they never got powerful enough to challenge both kingdom and Mosque power.

 

[Bache Tehroon]

In the years ahead, one of the easiest ways to weaken Akhundism in Iran is to bring the economics of shrines, Emamzadehs, mosques, Jamkaran, Bonyad Mostaz'afan and Komiteh-Emdad under the spotlight. It's very easy. All it takes is a few ambitious low-rank workers. They should be required to disclose their assets and get taxed accordingly.

A presidential candidate who capitalizes on this single issue can count on millions and millions of votes after a few years of it getting moderate exposure with factual numbers. People are hungry for drama like this. That's how AN managed to convince many people to vote for him (yes he cheated, but he had a few million votes because he promised to reveal financial secrets at top levels)

AN went after Rafsanjani and a few others who didn't represent much. Islamic centers are everywhere in Iran and corruption is the sole base of their operation. They need to get targeted and exposed. Once this gets done, Islam itself will lose its untouchable status, much like the Church and Christianity did.

 

[Farsi Zaban]

BH jan, that's easier said than done. All you are saying is based on the western model in which the conservative/religious groups were first slaughtered by each other (Catholics vs. Protestants) and then by secularists (French revolution). By the time democracy became widespread, all these groups had first-hand experience of what persecution and oppression means, and had much better appreciation of freedoms and rights and diversity of opinion.

Not so much in Islamic countries, where the believers by and large have rarely experienced religious persecution, still think that anyone who does not believe like them is najes and condemned, and have no appreciation of the value of freedom. Even moderates preach "respect and tolerance", which is quite different from freedom and diversity. Perhaps Turkey was the only bastion of secularism because of Ataturk's oppression in early days, and it is falling apart now as the power of military is eroding.

In such situation,I am not sure a piece of paper called constitution has any meaning. Once you have an Islamic government in power, they can use the power of majority under the disguise of democracy to do as they wish,appoint like-minded judges, interpret the constitution the way they like etc.

All I am saying is that it would take at least a few generations before an Islamic party can operate within a democratic framework without corrupting it, and even that would not be possible before they have experienced the taste of being persecuted and oppressed first hand. I am not sure if education by itself is sufficient to do it.

I hear what you are saying, but then you have the Shia in Lebanon, who were at one point repressed by Druze, Ottomans and basically anyone who controlled the region. It certainly hasn't made them more cognizant of freedom and rights. Same with Arabs in Gaza and West Bank for the last 60 years. My belief is that there is certain chauvinistic quality to Islam that needs to be corrected. This exists even among supposedly enlightened Muslims. As long as Muslims don't address this they will continue to believe the entire world should live by their rules.

 

[byebyenow]

In the years ahead, one of the easiest ways to weaken Akhundism in Iran is to bring the economics of shrines, Emamzadehs, mosques, Jamkaran, Bonyad Mostaz'afan and Komiteh-Emdad under the spotlight. It's very easy. All it takes is a few ambitious low-rank workers. They should be required to disclose their assets and get taxed accordingly.

A presidential candidate who capitalizes on this single issue can count on millions and millions of votes after a few years of it getting moderate exposure with factual numbers. People are hungry for drama like this. That's how AN managed to convince many people to vote for him (yes he cheated, but he had a few million votes because he promised to reveal financial secrets at top levels)

AN went after Rafsanjani and a few others who didn't represent much. Islamic centers are everywhere in Iran and corruption is the sole base of their operation. They need to get targeted and exposed. Once this gets done, Islam itself will lose its untouchable status, much like the Church and Christianity did.

who has enough power and money to challenge such groups and institutions in Iran? however yes, you have a right idea but with no large amount of capital and support it is almost impossible. The problem in Iran is also much deeper as you need to change the whole system as the whole. IMO the most powerful tools for people is national strikes which will shut the whole economy down and stop the money flow to the elites, it is in this point when you have leverage. We need movements that never die, not even protests which cause violence, we need movement that all people actively keep it alive. We need great leaders who are not politicians and are in no interest of seeking power, this sounds like a dream itself as we almost never get leaders like this or there is always people who are sell outs.

 

[ChaharMahal]

What i want to know is will abdullah gul challenge erdogan for presidency.
I wish we had politicians like in future of Iran.

 

[byebyenow]

more report about Turkey: Turkish Deputy apologized, strikes, Turkish labor and ect...
[video=youtube;OBUUrMPRvvg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=OBUUrMPRvvg[/video]

 

[Bi-honar]

BH jan, that's easier said than done. All you are saying is based on the western model in which the conservative/religious groups were first slaughtered by each other (Catholics vs. Protestants) and then by secularists (French revolution). By the time democracy became widespread, all these groups had first-hand experience of what persecution and oppression means, and had much better appreciation of freedoms and rights and diversity of opinion.

Not so much in Islamic countries, where the believers by and large have rarely experienced religious persecution, still think that anyone who does not believe like them is najes and condemned, and have no appreciation of the value of freedom. Even moderates preach "respect and tolerance", which is quite different from freedom and diversity. Perhaps Turkey was the only bastion of secularism because of Ataturk's oppression in early days, and it is falling apart now as the power of military is eroding.

In such situation,I am not sure a piece of paper called constitution has any meaning. Once you have an Islamic government in power, they can use the power of majority under the disguise of democracy to do as they wish,appoint like-minded judges, interpret the constitution the way they like etc.

All I am saying is that it would take at least a few generations before an Islamic party can operate within a democratic framework without corrupting it, and even that would not be possible before they have experienced the taste of being persecuted and oppressed first hand. I am not sure if education by itself is sufficient to do it.

Deerouz jaan, if we're going to break this down to an Eastern-Western experience, we may as well look at democracy itself as a western concept and say that they have 100's of years of experience in it and it just won't happen in Iran. If the assumption is that democracy is ultimately a possibility in Iran, the past experiences of other countries must be incorporated into the process without viewing those experiences as "Western" or treating our situation any differently. In that sense, the drafting of a secular constitution in Iran at some point would be very similar to the US experience, where the growing pains of Europe over the centuries did not have to be re-experienced, but instead incorporated into a secular constitution from the get-go. More below, in my response to Shahin...

Bi-Honar Aziz, I think your whole argument here is flawed because you failed to recognize the difficultly of writing that " IDEAL CONSTITUTION".
In a society that has Islamist parties and ... who will have the power to write that constitution ? How will that constitution be written ?

Shahin jaan, I'm not failing to recognize the difficulty of that process at all - it is going to be a very tedious and nearly impossible task for sure. However, my argument is that it's MUCH easier to ban Islamist ideologies during the drafting of the constitution which may take a few months, than it is to ban Islamic parties not only from the drafting of the constitution, but also from the entire political process for decades and centuries to come. I would personally have no problem with having Islamic representation in the committee or group that would draft the constitution, much like I would not have a problem with having any minority ethnic, religious and special interest groups represented. At the end of the end of the day the constitution has to be representative, but all these groups have to recognize that they will not have rights or special privileges that go above and beyond any other groups - that's the non-negotiable condition to participate. Once that condition is understood, it becomes impossible for any one group to exert its will over other groups and the constitution will automatically become a secular one.

... as well to regulate corporation power and expansion.

Absolutely. I think the corporate experience in the west has become a disaster and that's another area where we can use the experience of other countries in a newly drafted constitution. IMHO, the distinction between persons and entities is one that had been blurry in Western constitutions. Entities created by paper can not and should not have the same rights as individuals and I would go as far as saying any living creature, and that simple definition will become the cornerstone of responsible environmental policies, tax structure and legal proceedings.

 

[Playboy]

this is funny.the riot goons in the banana republic can't even bust in the door on a 7-11:http://youtu.be/bwVN2VU6l6s

 

[Fole_Penalt]

BH jan, that's easier said than done. All you are saying is based on the western model in which the conservative/religious groups were first slaughtered by each other (Catholics vs. Protestants) and then by secularists (French revolution). By the time democracy became widespread, all these groups had first-hand experience of what persecution and oppression means, and had much better appreciation of freedoms and rights and diversity of opinion.

Not so much in Islamic countries, where the believers by and large have rarely experienced religious persecution, still think that anyone who does not believe like them is najes and condemned, and have no appreciation of the value of freedom. Even moderates preach "respect and tolerance", which is quite different from freedom and diversity. Perhaps Turkey was the only bastion of secularism because of Ataturk's oppression in early days, and it is falling apart now as the power of military is eroding.

In such situation,I am not sure a piece of paper called constitution has any meaning. Once you have an Islamic government in power, they can use the power of majority under the disguise of democracy to do as they wish,appoint like-minded judges, interpret the constitution the way they like etc.

All I am saying is that it would take at least a few generations before an Islamic party can operate within a democratic framework without corrupting it, and even that would not be possible before they have experienced the taste of being persecuted and oppressed first hand. I am not sure if education by itself is sufficient to do it.

Absolutely, currently, there is no example of any Islamic Government anywhere that respects individual freedom to the extent that it is respected in the west (Anglo-American countries and those who have copied Anglo-Americans to be precise.) And what freedom west has in practice is minute compared to what it should be.

But don't kid yourself if you think that Ataturk's Turkey had much freedom. Iran under the Shah had more freedom. All you have to know is that the word Kurd was band, instead the Kurds were referred to as mountain Turks. Currently Turkey has a lot more freedom than it ever had under Ataturk or Ataturks Turkey.

The fact of the matter is that the culture of the East but in particular Middle East is all about despotism. Religion has simply embodied the existing culture. The only countries that have achieved some level of freedom outside of the west are those who have copied the west. The best examples are those who were once British colonies.

If Erdegon is becoming more of a despot it is because he now can and he could not before. He is simply tending towards the prevailing culture. Anyone who in practice respects individual freedom, Islamic or not, is laughed at in that part of the world as weak. What is respected is despotism. We have plenty such examples in Iran.

 

[Bache Tehroon]

^^ Very valid point about despotism and people associating the lack of it with weakness.

 

[Motori]

LOHELL

Why does this not surprise me?

"It’s crucial to note that the mayor of Istanbul, also from the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP), owns a retail chain that will make a killing out of the mall. And the man holding the contract for this “redevelopment” is no less than [Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's] son-in-law."

http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MID-01-030613.html

Who says Turks don't learn. This lesson is straight out of IRR nepotism book.

 

[Motori]

This picture reminds me of Azadi and Green protestor. Now if Erdugan has learned a lesson or 2 from IRR, his goons should come out and claim that the number of protestors was not more than few hundred.

​

 

[DireStraits]

Part of me thinks this is the continual of freedom movement all over ME another part says this is between Tel Aviv and Ankara. Turkey is among the few countries in ME which gives visa to Iranians. Would it be this way in future if the right wings wins?

 

[Motori]

This young and brave lady has captured my heart and mind. Her lifeless physic laying down with her eyes remained open remind me of our own Princess of Courage and Dignity Neda Agha Sultan. RIP brave one. I salute you for your courage and valor standing up for freedom and fight against oppression and islamists tyranny.

I promise you Rajab is going down with cargo compartment full of humility.