TR Politics

[mulj]

I disagree that the previous seculars haf inferiority complex. They tried to keep backwards thinking islamism from spreading. Something akind to how some people in rural places would vote on religious parties, because of religion.

People should evaluate and vote on people who will improve the country. In the past parties were required to make a pamphlet detailing their goals and people could hold them up on it.

Though it was a mistake preventing girls with veils from attending universities, that was too much.

Bro, it is complex soceity issue in general, mix of lot ideologies create more mess by my opinion, real question is how to establish most efficiemt mechanism for nation in terms of all society developement aspects and how to recognize what is the real deal, first step is merithocracy and honesty but in todays states that like impossible task to do as there is on going devaluation of tradion, science, culture, history, education in modern world, most of the positions of modern humans on west are held by pure emotions and trends, that does not have much value for me.

 

[Kaptaan]

islam is not christianity,

I agree and I think I know what your trying to say which I think is a very nuanced but critical point. However before we go there I think Ataturk style purge was needed and is needed in countries like Pakistan. This is where primitive feudal culture mutate with religion producing a toxic hybrid sold as Islam. It';s effects are devastating and produce a schizphrenic society like I have seen in Pakistan. a society where Islam becomes just a vehicle to imprison women and a tool to keep the elites in power by keeping the masses sedated with toxic religion. Ataturk pushed Turkey past that.

However going to today and the point I think you made. Moder liberal demoracies like UK are influenced by a Christian tradition. This is fact. This is about where we draw lines on engineering society. So for instance what age, who you can get married to is regulated. The nature of the marriage contract is also regulated.

My belief is that post Islamic liberal society like Turkey will have to chart it's own path as opposed to relying on European lines. Is sex acceptable outside of marriage? Of so does it break marriage contract. If so does the party who broke that contract suffer consequences.

Let me give you a crude example. In UK a wife can have a affair and rip a family apart yet go to court, keep the kids, keep the house and have a court order made against the husband to provide financial support. The husband loses his life time of work, his house, his kids and then is forced to pay support. Add to this he watches the man his wife had a affair move into his house, sleep in his bed and lord over his kids whilst he gets to see his kids maybe once a month. This often happens and I have seen this happen to neighbour of mine.

I can't see how a post modern Muslim society having laws like that. If post Islamic society does follow this template then sure your point about inferiorty complex might carry some currency. That is it is not being informed by it's own tradition but copying the template from Christian societies.

@Saiyan0321 @Saithan

 

[mulj]

I agree and I think I know what your trying to say which I think is a very nuanced but critical point. However before we go there I think Ataturk style purge was needed and is needed in countries like Pakistan. This is where primitive feudal culture mutate with religion producing a toxic hybrid sold as Islam. It';s effects are devastating and produce a schizphrenic society like I have seen in Pakistan. a society where Islam becomes just a vehicle to imprison women and a tool to keep the elites in power by keeping the masses sedated with toxic religion. Ataturk pushed Turkey past that.

However going to today and the point I think you made. Moder liberal demoracies like UK are influenced by a Christian tradition. This is fact. This is about where we draw lines on engineering society. So for instance what age, who you can get married to is regulated. The nature of the marriage contract is also regulated.

My belief is that post Islamic liberal society like Turkey will have to chart it's own path as opposed to relying on European lines. Is sex acceptable outside of marriage? Of so does it break marriage contract. If so does the party who broke that contract suffer consequences.

Let me give you a crude example. In UK a wife can have a affair and rip a family apart yet go to court, keep the kids, keep the house and have a court order made against the husband to provide financial support. The husband loses his life time of work, his house, his kids and then is forced to pay support. Add to this he watches the man his wife had a affair move into his house, sleep in his bed and lord over his kids whilst he gets to see his kids maybe once a month. This often happens and I have seen this happen to neighbour of mine.

I can't see how a post modern Muslim society having laws like that. If post Islamic society does follow this template then sure your point about inferiorty complex might carry some currency.

@Saiyan0321 @Saithan

Exactly, not have much to add to your post and some more clever and educated people should communicate that message in wider scale. I will add just one silly fact and question for all fellow members. Every 50 man in britain raise the kid that is not his, is that what you want for your socities and your off spring, just be honest.

 

[Kaptaan]

Exactly, not have much to add to your post and some more clever and educated people should communicate that message in wider scale. I will add just one silly fact and question for all fellow members. Every 50 man in britain raise the kid that is not his, is that what you want for your socities and your off spring, just be honest.

I often have this discussion here in UK. Most men in private will moan about it but such is the feminist driven culture of political correctness this is subject to be talked about with extreme care. The number 'damaged' men is amazing. Living isolated lifes.

Laws that regulate other aspects of social life are acceptable but anything to regulate such matters to create better outcomes are baulked at.

 

[adenl]

The premise that a lot of you hold, is that modernity is something good and worth striving for. For the sake of time and general difficulty in convincing people (like you lot) of philosophically, theologically and historically complex, paradigm shifting and ego-breaking truths about today's age and where we are heading as mankind, I'll tell you that this premise (modernity=good) is completely and totally wrong.

And as for looking for similarities between the development of the enlightenment and subsequent modernity out of Christianity with Islam, is at best shortsighted and at worse blatant ignorance. Islam is not Christianity.

 

[Kaptaan]

The premise that a lot of you hold, is that modernity is something good and worth striving for.

Surely is that something in our control as a society. Exactly what shape and form that modernity takes place is in our control. Adapt we must but it is for society to chart that path.

 

[Saithan]

At the end of the day all it will require is to keep islam free of politics or vice verse.

By this I mean be more fair towards the individual. In the example provided by @Kaptaan you can tell that the laws need revision.

Even in Denmark a child’s need takes precedence thus you might end up as the father and eventually pay support.

But it’s at least more fair than the UK system as there is no spousal support anymore. And the house will be sold and both part get to live their own life.

 

[Kaptaan]

Even in Denmark a child’s need takes precedence

That is also the case in UK. But the rub as often is the case is in how you define "childs need". I don't know if @Saiyan0321 knows this but I practiced law in UK for nearly 30 years. Over that time although my interest was property, investment and later insurance but I did experiance family courts in earlier part of my career. I can tell you honestly they are no better than Taliban courts. The only differance is fancy buildings, fancy cloths.

The courts and the entire system cries about "child's need" but what that means is social care workers get to decide. And that often is dependent on the worker. If she has a chip with men as most do in UK [they tend to be left leaning, LGBT types] "child needs" means no for the father. I have seen a doctor lose out against his ex-wife who moved across to other side of the country to spite him. Then she made trumped up charges against him about domestic abuse. He was from Pakistan and doing a medical qualification course that would allow him to practice in UK. He lost his stay and was blocked from ever coming back to UK. I still remember his crying to see his daughter. I could do nothing because the system is such.

I think the family courts are a mess in Anglo countries and I have heard Southern Europe is better. If in Pakistan the woman have been placed second class in Anglosphere the male often can end up being castrated.

Child sexual abuse is rampant and one of biggest reasons is fatherless familes. The problem is so big that it's not even a issue anymore because it's actually has become a given with no real solutions other than platitudes.

 

[Kaptaan]

Guys I just realised this is "Turkish politics" and I have gone tangent 2000 miles away to UK politics. So I will disengage from this thread.

 

[Saiyan0321]

Well the discussion did go elsewhere so we must comeback.

my queries remain here

Khalifa.. He has the Pakistani fanboys vote but on a serious note i have a couple of questions from my turkish brethren on this to get a better understanding of Turkish politics.

Can Turkey declare the entire constitution defunct and prepare a completely new one because i was under the impression that the constitutional changes brought through referendums changed the constitution greatly yet did not change the entire constitutional document like the 18th amendment changed nearly 1/3rd of the Pakistani constitution and brought grand changes into the constitution and changed the very nature of the country but it still remained the 1973 constitution. Here it seems that he wants to bring forth an absolutely new document so can Turkey do that? Is the Turkish constitutional setup that flexible? (in case there is a misunderstanding, this isnt a chide remark. Constitutions are divided into Rigid, semi-rigid and Flexible. Like we have a rigid constitution since amending it requires 2/3rd majorioty, assembly cant amend certain sections etc. etc.)

Secondly

There must be some talk on the Turkish news channels and Turkish legal circles about what form of changes the government wishes to propose or bring forth. Is there any idea? Surely there must be some talk, sources and analysis?

Lastly and this is the fan boys

Will turkey continue the secular nature of the constitution or will he introduce Islamic nature? What are the chances of this happening? Most Pakistanis on PDF basically know either Turkey of when it was fighting crusaders in Anatolia or was the Ottoman. If Attaturk wasnt a staunch secular nationalist, he would be called Ghazi Attaurk by them, so you all as turk, who live there or have the most contacts there or know the people there, how do you see the an Islamic republic and whether this is what Erdogan wants to do and whether this is acceptable to the Turkish People?

@T-123456 @Bogeyman @Tonyukuk @Sinan @Webslave @Cabatli_53 @Test7 @Kartal1

.

 

[Sinan]

Khalifa.. He has the Pakistani fanboys vote but on a serious note i have a couple of questions from my turkish brethren on this to get a better understanding of Turkish politics.

Can Turkey declare the entire constitution defunct and prepare a completely new one because i was under the impression that the constitutional changes brought through referendums changed the constitution greatly yet did not change the entire constitutional document like the 18th amendment changed nearly 1/3rd of the Pakistani constitution and brought grand changes into the constitution and changed the very nature of the country but it still remained the 1973 constitution. Here it seems that he wants to bring forth an absolutely new document so can Turkey do that? Is the Turkish constitutional setup that flexible? (in case there is a misunderstanding, this isnt a chide remark. Constitutions are divided into Rigid, semi-rigid and Flexible. Like we have a rigid constitution since amending it requires 2/3rd majorioty, assembly cant amend certain sections etc. etc.)

Secondly

There must be some talk on the Turkish news channels and Turkish legal circles about what form of changes the government wishes to propose or bring forth. Is there any idea? Surely there must be some talk, sources and analysis?

Lastly and this is the fan boys

Will turkey continue the secular nature of the constitution or will he introduce Islamic nature? What are the chances of this happening? Most Pakistanis on PDF basically know either Turkey of when it was fighting crusaders in Anatolia or was the Ottoman. If Attaturk wasnt a staunch secular nationalist, he would be called Ghazi Attaurk by them, so you all as turk, who live there or have the most contacts there or know the people there, how do you see the an Islamic republic and whether this is what Erdogan wants to do and whether this is acceptable to the Turkish People?

@Kaptaan you are welcome as well to answer.

Reserved gonna reply later.

 

[Nilgiri]

Well the discussion did go elsewhere so we must comeback.

my queries remain here



@T-123456 @Bogeyman @Tonyukuk @Sinan @Webslave @Cabatli_53 @Test7 @Kartal1

.

My 2 cents (I may be in error and be grateful for correction or addition):

Quoting example from: http://dergiler.ankara.edu.tr/dergiler/64/1536/16861.pdf

.....The second Paragraph of the revised version of Article 14 of the Turkish Constitution repeats almost verbatim
Article 17 of the ECHR. According to the revised Article 14 of the Turkish Constitution....

Revisions (not just amendments) thus seem to have a process/framework in Turkey under current 1981 constitution+amendments (without say a coup/revolution)...so effectively you can edit/change/revise articles of the constitution.

I suppose this is unlike a number of other constitutions (esp common law) where stare decisis often (given precedence inertia) effectively limits to amendments only.

Civil law system its different, its lot easier to revise (articles) I believe....like how US dictated to Japan diet to do so for extra article 9 (till then there were just 8) after the conclusion of ww2. A lot more articles (for individual rights) were added after it....given 1 - 8 (original) articles concerned primarily the distribution of power between monarch and govt, and the set up of the govt itself etc.

But point is they could take this via direct article route instead of amendment route...though I am unsure if this in the end is just a naming convention thing in the end effectively (since US individual rights are similarly enshrined in their first 10 amendments, and their articles before it govern the functioning/role of the govt).

So I guess in the end it depends country to country what the definition, status etc is of an article versus an amendment....and there may be core articles and core amendments within these...that are not that open (or open at all) to revision or change (within it's own framework).

BTW, Canada is an unique case where this kind of thing has come into extended study and debate (esp in 1990s) ever since 7 years war and montcalm's surrender and death during Annus mirabilis (for british) and annus horribilis (for French) in 1759.

This is due to Quebec keeping/orienting to a civil law system in 19th century after napoleons/french continental success. I believe this regards matters regarding revision of provincial constitution as well.... whereas federal law (and thus Canada's constitution) is common law basis from British heritage.

I don't think any other country has quite this kind of thing going on to this day (Canada debated in 1995 to doing a federal constitution revision to grant quebec more autonomy in an article itself, but stuck to its guns in the end and kept amendment process only).

Louisiana which also has civil law (and a parallel cousin reason to Quebec) has settled this much more definitively I believe....or the matter simply never took on the form like it has done in Quebec.

Again there could be some conflation on my end from what the legal analysis has done w.r.t terminology (loosely or precisely) of article vs amendment in each country.

@Joe Shearer

 

[Nilgiri]

Guys I just realised this is "Turkish politics" and I have gone tangent 2000 miles away to UK politics. So I will disengage from this thread.

On the contrary (IMO) , it was still a very useful read, and I certainly appreciated reading your perspective and experience here.

We all get sidetracked from time to time, but I think that's a good thing in lot of cases because you get a fuller perspective of the land when a river meanders.

Turks and readers in general for example here can compare (without needing to reply) the differences as they know it in Turkey (or whichever country they are in/from) to how you have brought it up w.r.t UK...and with the broader context of politics too... and everyone gains....turkish or otherwise.

BTW, family courts are terrible in many countries...the only good one I have seen to some degree is in Singapore (up close at least)...but might have just gotten lucky who knows.

But the worst family courts bar none in the world (when all factors considered) are in US...given there is no federal statute on divorce and related issues (unlike say Canada).

Thus the judges at US state level at such courts have immense amount of discretion (compared to anywhere else in world I believe)...and you cannot get counsel or representation (say public defender) if you cannot afford it unlike in regular courts.

Thus all those poor sops that are forced to defend themselves in such process (unable to afford a lawyer) get reamed badly by judge on just procedural and convention matters (since they dont know any of this stuff) and it just goes terribly (they dont know what to protest against etc and are stuck with something extra wretched and unfair at end).

Then when you do have money, the lawyers and judges are in it to nickle and dime to grow and entrench the system even further rather than deliver a legal process efficiently and appropriately.

Something like a 50+ billion dollar a year industry that has taken shape and has vested interest in the action rather than consequence.

PPl these days (in west esp) are dumb if they dont sign a pre-nup if you ask me.

 

[mulj]

i think we should go back to the basics and ask question what the state as construct it really is. what is the nature and purpose of that frame, is it well being of the citizens and harmony with neighbours, what is exactly well being and how is it measured, what is state mission in general just concerning citizen needs without interfering internationally, what are exact social and political values and on what they are based, those questions can go indefinite and probably nobody can give proper answer.
main problem with world politics that is shaped by western ideologies in general which might had success in their zone but i think that it generally brought misery to to humanity with very uncertain future of planet and that ones does not really work well under the cultures and socities which are from different background.
how is all this related to the turkey, actually it very is as the turkey is good example of that kind of global conflicting and adapting to the this kind of rules which are shown as unfair on global scale even in west if you apply more precise analysys, so how turkish politic will answer on those questions and which path it will take is quite interesting question, by my firm attitude any taken way will not be applauded by outer audience wheter it would be soft political islam, secular turkish nationalism, battling about these 2 opposite concept is pure energy wasting and further water mudding, possible and logical answer is to narrow focus on less topics as possible and try to provide good solutions to those.

 

[Sinan]

Khalifa.. He has the Pakistani fanboys vote but on a serious note i have a couple of questions from my turkish brethren on this to get a better understanding of Turkish politics.

Can Turkey declare the entire constitution defunct and prepare a completely new one because i was under the impression that the constitutional changes brought through referendums changed the constitution greatly yet did not change the entire constitutional document like the 18th amendment changed nearly 1/3rd of the Pakistani constitution and brought grand changes into the constitution and changed the very nature of the country but it still remained the 1973 constitution. Here it seems that he wants to bring forth an absolutely new document so can Turkey do that? Is the Turkish constitutional setup that flexible? (in case there is a misunderstanding, this isnt a chide remark. Constitutions are divided into Rigid, semi-rigid and Flexible. Like we have a rigid constitution since amending it requires 2/3rd majorioty, assembly cant amend certain sections etc. etc.)

Secondly

There must be some talk on the Turkish news channels and Turkish legal circles about what form of changes the government wishes to propose or bring forth. Is there any idea? Surely there must be some talk, sources and analysis?

Lastly and this is the fan boys

Will turkey continue the secular nature of the constitution or will he introduce Islamic nature? What are the chances of this happening? Most Pakistanis on PDF basically know either Turkey of when it was fighting crusaders in Anatolia or was the Ottoman. If Attaturk wasnt a staunch secular nationalist, he would be called Ghazi Attaurk by them, so you all as turk, who live there or have the most contacts there or know the people there, how do you see the an Islamic republic and whether this is what Erdogan wants to do and whether this is acceptable to the Turkish People?

@Kaptaan you are welcome as well to answer.

First of all you need read the first 3 articles than read the 4th article which answers some of your questions.

I. Form of the State

ARTICLE 1- The State of Turkey is a Republic.

II. Characteristics of the Republic

ARTICLE 2- The Republic of Turkey is a democratic, secular and social state governed by rule of law, within the notions of public peace, national solidarity and justice, respecting human rights, loyal to the nationalism of Atatürk, and based on the fundamental tenets set forth in the preamble.

III. Integrity, official language, flag, national anthem, and capital of the State

ARTICLE 3- The State of Turkey, with its territory and nation, is an indivisible entity. Its language is Turkish. Its flag, the form of which is prescribed by the relevant law, is composed of a white crescent and star on a red background. Its national anthem is the “Independence March”. Its capital is Ankara.

ARTICLE 4- The provision of Article 1 regarding the form of the State being a Republic, the characteristics of the Republic in Article 2, and the provisions of Article 3 shall not be amended, nor shall their amendment be proposed.


^^^ Other articles can be changed but nobody can touch the first 4 articles.

Regarding discussions on "new" constitution, we don't know. Erdogan is keeping that to himself. He just said "maybe it's time for a new constitution" nothing more.

To change the articles in the parliament they need 2/3 of the votes which makes 400 out of 600 votes.
To change the articles by a referandum needs 3/5 of the votes which makes 360 out of 600 votes.

AKP and it's ally MHP have 337 votes in the parliament. Forget changing it themselves, they can't take it to referandum.

TÜRKİYE BÜYÜK MİLLET MECLİSİ

Türkiye Büyük Millet Meclisi Resmi İnternet Sitesi

www.tbmm.gov.tr

Many commentators and i think that he is just trying to divert the attention from ongoing economic crisis, nothing more.

 

[Nilgiri]

Thanks bro @Sinan , so first 4 articles are the "core" articles for Turkey like I mentioned earlier. A very useful post you have made to give the context.

BTW:

To change the articles in the parliament they need 2/3 of the votes which makes 400 out of 600 votes.
To change the articles by a referandum needs 2/3 of the votes which makes 360 out of 600 votes.

I think 2nd line should be 3/5ths i.e 60%?

 

[Sinan]

Thanks bro @Sinan , so first 4 articles are the "core" articles for Turkey like I mentioned earlier. A very useful post you have made to give the context.

BTW:



I think 2nd line should be 3/5ths i.e 60%?

Ah, yeah.

 

[Saiyan0321]

First of all you need read the first 3 articles than read the 4th article which answers some of your questions.

I. Form of the State

ARTICLE 1- The State of Turkey is a Republic.

II. Characteristics of the Republic

ARTICLE 2- The Republic of Turkey is a democratic, secular and social state governed by rule of law, within the notions of public peace, national solidarity and justice, respecting human rights, loyal to the nationalism of Atatürk, and based on the fundamental tenets set forth in the preamble.

III. Integrity, official language, flag, national anthem, and capital of the State

ARTICLE 3- The State of Turkey, with its territory and nation, is an indivisible entity. Its language is Turkish. Its flag, the form of which is prescribed by the relevant law, is composed of a white crescent and star on a red background. Its national anthem is the “Independence March”. Its capital is Ankara.

ARTICLE 4- The provision of Article 1 regarding the form of the State being a Republic, the characteristics of the Republic in Article 2, and the provisions of Article 3 shall not be amended, nor shall their amendment be proposed.


^^^ Other articles can be changed but nobody can touch the first 4 articles.

Regarding discussions on "new" constitution, we don't know. Erdogan is keeping that to himself. He just said "maybe it's time for a new constitution" nothing more.

To change the articles in the parliament they need 2/3 of the votes which makes 400 out of 600 votes.
To change the articles by a referandum needs 3/5 of the votes which makes 360 out of 600 votes.

AKP and it's ally MHP have 337 votes in the parliament. Forget changing it themselves, they can't take it to referandum.

TÜRKİYE BÜYÜK MİLLET MECLİSİ

Türkiye Büyük Millet Meclisi Resmi İnternet Sitesi

www.tbmm.gov.tr

Many commentators and i think that he is just trying to divert the attention from ongoing economic crisis, nothing more.

Thank you. Hmmm if such conditions exist then a democratic government and assembly has no power to declare a constitution defunct. The biggest problem for such assemblies is that they are themselves a construct of a constitution and thus cannot deconstruct what constructs them.

 

[Sinan]

Thank you. Hmmm if such conditions exist then a democratic government and assembly has no power to declare a constitution defunct. The biggest problem for such assemblies is that they are themselves a construct of a constitution and thus cannot deconstruct what constructs them.

Many of the Pakistanis, i see on internet are very misinformed about Turkey. Turkey is not equal to Erdogan.

I understand that some Pakistanis want to see a Muslim SuperPower and what other country could be that except Turkey, successor of Ottomans last Caliphate and Muslim Empire. But those day are gone a century ago.

 

[Saiyan0321]

Many of the Pakistanis, i see on internet are very misinformed about Turkey. Turkey is not equal to Erdogan.

I understand that some Pakistanis want to see a Muslim SuperPower and what other country could be that except Turkey, successor of Ottomans last Caliphate and Muslim Empire. But those day are gone a century ago.

No argument there since most of them on the internet expect you guys to be riding horses fighting crusaders. This is why I try to learn as much as I can about the Turkish state and legal thought, constitution and society, albeit limitations of not knowing Turkish.

Coming to erdogan, there is misinformation that erdogan is everything in Turkey without realising that even he is a construct of his constitution and whilst he may be able to bring amendments to the constitutions (which you have shown he can't in this term) but even if he could, then he would remain within the constitutional framework. This is very important to understand that there are restrictions to constitutional amendments as well for example you may have noticed how on PDF many keep talking about presidential system or removing Islam as well without realising that it is nearly impossible to do either of them since the constitutional framework has enshrined parliamentary system within the constitution along with the Islamic nature of the state. Even the dictators had to create some form of parliamentary system.

One of the most important pieces of the constitution is the preamble where we often see the blueprint of the constitution. The preamble is, in most cases, also outside the legislative authority of the legislature for example our preamble basically creates the blueprint of our constitution and I have read your preamble and it also incorporates the same. So this is another factor that we can use to understand Turks constitutional setup and the people themselves.

Lastly this is why it is imperative that we increase our people to people contacts so that we can understand you and your politicians and politics and you can understand us and our politics.

Erdogan, as far as I can tell, is a conservative and that doesn't mean the same as the term we use for us. Pakistan doesn't have liberals or conservatives. We have western modernists and Islamist conservatives along with a patriotic nationalists which adhere to conservative values more. Erdogan is a conservative politician and that's it. He is not some caliph, not some sultan but a conservative politician...