Latest Thread
Me personally find insulting characterizing certain political views as comservative, i call it common sence. Who defines what is coservative and by which normative?
I find it ilogical and manipukative, who decide what is progress amd what is sa called rooted thing? That is fundamental issue i decline to be called conservative by ilogical and destructive political specter that calls itself progressive. It is just convinient tool to discvalify opponents by usually appeling on emotions.Broadly a conservative wants to keep things rooted to an existing or earlier paradigm (w.r.t society)...i.e he/she in favour of conserving that.
A progressive wants to change things to another paradigm they see as better or more ideal (and that they see as not existing in enough prevalence in society).
A liberal (classically) wants to find balance between these two by debate and argument and scope of freedom to engage in this. Either conservative or progressive can be a liberal too.
Thus given the long existence of some sort of market dynamic for bulk of society to exchange their goods and services for prosperity (versus say the immense consolidation/direction of this under a state control, which is a new phenomenon in human history)....you can see how these roughly align with right, left and centre in economic ideology/arguments as well.
I find it ilogical and manipukative, who decide what is progress amd what is sa called rooted thing? That is fundamental issue i decline to be called conservative by ilogical and destructive political specter that calls itself progressive. It is just convinient tool to discvalify opponents by usually appeling on emotions.
Liberalism in political sense is also fake and totalitarian concept itself which is in logical constelation inconsistent and apsurd.
You know, i just refuse labeling made by west what is progressive, conservative,liberal, they do not have monopoly on social constructing. Also, those constructs are staled and some new social paradigms should emerge.Yes the "who" matters a lot given people have bias and often nefarious intent w.r.t people that disagree with them.
I am just giving the broad contours of the overall concept in my understanding. There is no absolute reference and perspective here.
I have various things about me arguably (IMO) from all 3 elements, conservative, liberal and progressive. But w.r.t society around me (at least as I perceive it), I am deemed somewhat more conservative I suppose. But what is conservative "here" is not what is conservative "there" etc.
Essentially maybe that is what is the relative reference we have at hand, what is the overall society opinion etc on some issues of note....and what is the range you use to define that immediate society....it can vary regionally within a country quite a lot.
You know, i just refuse labeling made by west what is progressive, conservative,liberal, they do not have monopoly on social constructing. Also, those constructs are staled and some new social paradigms should emerge.
By the end of post you wrote what intrigue me most, who can tell what is what and label something as such, i can see some logic in that trio as possible needed balance in society but thing it is crumbling in front of us as concept, i reffer on west, usa particulary as they are still world leaders and norm makers (that particulary pisses me off), that is why i have opinion that we are moving fast towards postliberal constructs but still have no clear picture how it will look, first glimps does not paint it bright.West is just a geography and broad culture....like any other.
I don't talk about conservative, liberal and progressive from a western definition at all, but a larger conceptual one that applies everywhere. Though I probably am most familiar with the western context and application of it (though I like studying others too).
No one has any absolute (moral or other) standing on any of this. We can argue and debate why and what the realised relative results are and why they come about....and take that on board in all our search for truth and order.
But each society is unique and has found and will find its own settings and references....and learn and evolve and get better in the long term (hopefully, God-willing). In that way they all have what is conservative, liberal and progressive for them in some snapshot....with the intent/duty of maximising Good and diminishing Bad.
There is thus some balance needed so you learn from best approaches and results of others (given even a society is ultimately diverse itself and "others" can always be found in it depending how you draw some line)...but without compromising on what works for you and (IMO) your core identities.
This is why for example in US, those (of power and means especially) that have abandoned the old principles in significant way and have "re-invented" or shape-shifted in some dishonest way posing as it anyway are often given "neo" moniker as in neo-liberal or neo-con etc. If it is one thing I hate, its dishonesty and hypocrisy....there is huge amount of it in the realms of power inevitably.
By the end of post you wrote what intrigue me most, who can tell what is what and label something as such, i can see some logic in that trio as possible needed balance in society but thing it is crumbling in front of us as concept, i reffer on west, usa particulary as they are still world leaders and norm makers (that particulary pisses me off), that is why i have opinion that we are moving fast towards postliberal constructs but still have no clear picture how it will look, first glimps does not paint it bright.
Will reply, but not today, not for a couple of days more.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
Will reply, but not today, not for a couple of days more.
i am actually suprised in pleasant manner about this statement, it shows maturity and high level of awareness about toxic usa approach towards turkey, very nice to see this opposing to treatment like you are banana republic.
Group Deputy Chairman Engin Altay:
"Mr. Erdogan, if you are affected by this letter and the threat and make concessions in the Eastern Mediterranean, Cyprus, the Aegean, Syria and even in Libya, you are a coward, however if you will not make concessions, we will be behind you."
Does the CHP normally back AKPs foreign policy decisions?
I wonder if government being silent means they’re using softpower to achieve something, or is this a strategy to get more domestic production even if it is chinese companies.