fail vs. fail

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7297390.stm

This caught my eye just now. Islamofags who are trying to convert a secular country to shariahole is bad, but banning a party who got 47% of the votes too is bad. I'm not sure which side is right (or, "more right", I should say) in a situation like this, so I thought I should ask /newpol/, and considering the average intelligence here, the opposite of what you think should be the right one.

oy vey

yet another example of democracy failing - it brings people who will destroy it to power, due to the stupidity of people.

does it remind you of a country, you know, far in west, has shiny stuff?

>>2
vegas?

in turkey, there is basically a group worshipping mohammed and another group worshipping ataturk. They occasionally have stuff like this, it doesn't make the country any less shitty.

ps: basically, one group wants to go back to ~600AD, and the others want to go back to 1920's-30's.

I want to go back to the future.

islamic people are the democratic ones? lol that's new

Jeepers, I would rather be a Pakistani than a Turk.

>>7
man, that's harsh

a pakistani is just above an afghan...

Kemal introduced crazy fundamentalist secular policies way back in the day, they weren't that popular, but being the nationalist militarist he was, he had some popular support as a leader. As time went on, people got pissed off with it, in the 60s or 70s they elected a different party that was more muslim and less secular. The army, in cooperation with the old Kemalist republican party, overthrew the newly elected government. The army in Turkey is extremely strong and devoted to enforcing the unpopular secular policies which, while nice in theory, obviously don't really fit. If the majority of people vote for an Islamic party, that isn't a call for Jihad, you should look at their other policies as well, and who votes for them. It tends to be poor people. So, you have a small, rich, and pro-secular middle class who want to keep their oppressive state/army political structure, and a poor working class who want change. I know who I think is right.

>>9
Oversimplification in some parts, plainly wrong in some other.

>Kemal introduced crazy fundamentalist secular policies way back in the day, they weren't that popular, but being the nationalist militarist he was, he had some popular support as a leader.

He won the war for independence, so whatever he said was done no matter how "ridiculous" they were for a backwards islamic country.

>As time went on, people got pissed off with it, in the 60s or 70s they elected a different party that was more muslim and less secular.
More like 1950's, the "democrat party" was founded, which garnered votes by calling the current state party "godless", re-instituted arabic call to prayer, stopped the turkish language reform, shut down village institutes (rural universities) etc. etc. However, near 1960, they were losing popularity due to their failing economic policies, and simultaneously they were planning to create a body of appointed officials which superseded the national assembly in power, which obviously was going to be used to shut down the opposition party. Many people believed they couldn't do it, until in 1960 prime minister Menderes survived a plane crash, which skyrocketed his popularity. Then, the military staged a coup, hanged Menderes and a few other ministers for treason, his actions against minorities (the september pogrom), etc.

But, people who did the coup were mostly young lieutenants etc. who could not really garner popular support, so they instituted Cemal Gursel, a war hero, as president. Gursel is the only person in history who took power via a military coup he didn't start.

Anyways, Gursel had the universities draft a new constitution, which gave considerable individual rights to the people. Education etc. were reformed and what the Democrat Party made was attempted to be undone. However, when democratic elections continued the power struggle re-started, with a new element - commies. Socialists gained considerable strength in that time of liberty, and managed to enter the grand assembly etc. Simultaneously, the old republican party - the party of Kemal - took a more left-wing attitude to counter the growth of commies, which worked very well for them. But, this didn't bode well for the old-schoolfags. Ultra-nationalists were armed, and they were sent out to do massacres on may the first etc. in the end, in 1980, the army stepped in "to restore stability"

so, the last military coup was in no way against islamofags, while the first had a slight relation. And, post 1980, General Evren who took power was a complete retard. He banned the Kurdish language, which ended up causing the PKK rebellion, and after his spree of extra-judicial killings and executions of commies even if they were 17 year olds were done, to consolidate his power he resorted to islamic rhetoric, citing from qur'an in his speeches, opening religious schools etc.

So, after a time, people who grew out of that education system ended up being islamic faggots, before religion was "just a thing" among many for the right-wing parties, but it started to be "the thing" recently, thanks to the military coup. But, after commies were all killed and/or deported, the islamic faggots whom they fed turned against them, and now we have this shitstorm.


So, the ruling party is not there for change, or democracy. They are the byproduct of the same tradition which whores religious feelings for the gain of the rich. It is the bureaucracy vs. bourgeois in Turkey, the islamofags did nothing for the workers, however they know what works to get their uneducated asses worked up.

Indeed, blindly siding with the islamic neo-liberal party isn't the obvious choice if you go beyond the "majority vs. minority bawww" rhetoric.

>>10
I forgot to add, that the 1982 constitution removed most of the rights the citizens had.

die lösung

nach dem aufstand des 17. juni
ließ der sekretär des schriftstellerverbands
in der stalinallee flugblätter verteilen
auf denen zu lesen war, daß das volk
das vertrauen der regierung verscherzt habe
und es nur durch verdoppelte arbeit
zurückerobern könne. wäre es da
nicht doch einfacher, die regierung
löste das volk auf und
wählte ein anderes?

>>12
get out, nazi

>>13
facepalm.png

Seeing as how I'm pro-secular govt and anti-Sharia law in equal measures I think its a worthy sacrifice to get a party with 47% disregarded for the sake of keeping the country I was born in sensible and decent. I've always been quite proud of Turkey's secular govt, despite its shortcomings, considering the turmoil and oppression in many other middle eastern countries, I'd hate to see in take a step back in time by adopting Sharia law.

>>10
I didn't mean to imply that either party was ideal, just to note that the poor in Turkey got an extremely bad deal from the type of society built by Kemalist elements in the Turkish middle class and ruling elite. Appeals to alternatives, even if extremely undesirable from an outsider perspective, have to be looked at in terms of what they're replacing. A political culture which is so polarised can only lead to trouble, and it's important to mention how, in the past, spectacular efforts have been made to inforce the special sort of fundamentalist secularism that exists there, against the will of the majority of the population.

>>16
Au contraire, they got a bad deal from the society built by the opposition. The central-right wing party that took after the Kemalist party undid reforms not only in religion, but also in education. The village institutes, for example, created "dangerous" ideas in rural regions, which did not bode well with the landlords, and then they pledged their support - and today some regions in Turkey are still feudal, and the people with no land, no education, no money, with nothing, turn to religion, and vote for JDP. These are the same guys who keep undoing social security reforms, and consistently poor have been getting poorer while the rich got significantly richer.

Basically, the poor side with some people, but those people are the same who exploited them in the past, and will keep exploiting them. The "Kemalist" Republican party are a bunch of fascists nowadays, but they are most certainly the lesser of two evils.

Not to mention, since when did getting votes made you above the constitution?

I should also add, the guy who sued JDP, the head prosecutor, had also sued the party which had connections with the PKK - the kurdish terrorist organization (the prosecutor himself is a Kurd though). When he did that, the JDP leaders had congratulated him, yet now they are all crying.