(Turkey)Occupy Gezi crackdown spins out of control

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

What? How is it then democratic then when you go against the will of the people?

Because it's a necessity if the actual system of democracy is going to be sustained?

There's such a thing as nuance, man. We've learned by now that undemocratic elements are necessary to keep an overall democratic system that provides a decent standard of living going, just like when we say "No you can't lynch X minority even if everyone agrees they don't like them.". Look at the big picture. Kicking out Islamists who got elected yesterday to ensure that there are elections tomorrow, the day after tomorrow and so forth does further the cause of democracy even if it isn't democratic in the immediate sense.

This is a slippery slope argument that can be applied to just about any political party when defined on certain terms. It will not work.

Do so and you will find a revolt the next day. Have fun.

[Alyeska]

Democracy in the truest sense is just majority rule. Mob rule. Those with the most votes win. It says nothing about their culture or how the minority is treated.

Things that limit the power of the majority vote are inherently anti-democratic. The US has systems in place deliberately designed to give the minority power the ability to stall the government. It has laws in place to limit the government (ie, majority vote). Those are anti-democratic. But they are put in place to protect the rights of the minority.

The military of Turkey is anti-democratic. But I would argue that given the culture and history of the country they are a necessary protector of the minority. They protect the culture of the country by preventing radicalists from taking power. It is not a perfect situation. In fact it is very far from ideal. A country that relies on its military to keep its government in check. But a country that also freely elects these governments without concern for the potential damage.

Turkey is a broken country. It is a joke to call them a functional democracy in (or near) the Middle East. I would say that Turkey prospers and does well in spite of their disadvantages. But the country is still broken. And it could slide into two very bad directions if people are not careful. Religious extremism, or military dictatorship.

[Simon_Jester]

Question:

Which of the following is more in keeping with democratic values:

1) For the police to beat and kill unarmed protestors who protest blue laws and the demolition of public parks, OR
2) For the army to shelter the protestors, and stop the police from beating and killing them?

I would like to know Fingolfin and Hongi's answers to this question.

[Alyeska]

Democratic Values is a meaningless statement. Democracy is mob rule. The military and its history of dismantling the government is by its nature anti-democratic.

A popularly elected government that beats and kills unarmed protestors was still a popularly elected government.

People are confusing Democracy with Western Morality.

[Stark]

It's definitely a great example of the ends justifying the means.

If the government arrested military guys for plotting against the government, isn't this reasonable given the threat military coups pose to the elected government? If George Bush had ordered the arrest of military guys planning to oust him, would that have been good or bad?

[D.Turtle]

Democracy in the truest sense is just majority rule. Mob rule. Those with the most votes win.

Bullshit.

Democracy is simply rule by the people. It does not in any way say anything how exactly that rule is decided. It could be by absolute majority, it could be by relative majority, it could be by supermajority, it could be by direct rule, it could be by representatives, etc.

The military of Turkey is anti-democratic. But I would argue that given the culture and history of the country they are a necessary protector of the minority. They protect the culture of the country by preventing radicalists from taking power. It is not a perfect situation. In fact it is very far from ideal. A country that relies on its military to keep its government in check. But a country that also freely elects these governments without concern for the potential damage.

There are possible (democratic!) mechanisms that can be put in place to stop anti-democratic groups (even if elected to government!) from dismantling a democracy that do not require semi-periodic military coups.

[Alyeska]

Bullshit.

Democracy is simply rule by the people. It does not in any way say anything how exactly that rule is decided. It could be by absolute majority, it could be by relative majority, it could be by supermajority, it could be by direct rule, it could be by representatives, etc.

You call bullshit, then agree with me. Very confusing.

There are possible (democratic!) mechanisms that can be put in place to stop anti-democratic groups (even if elected to government!) from dismantling a democracy that do not require semi-periodic military coups.

Which requires either public support (ie Democracy), or forced upon the people (coup). Funny how that works. So to get the protections in place you have to convince the current majority that enjoys running roughshod over its opposition to voluntarily limit their power. Not exactly an easy prospect. Or you force the decision on the government through something with sufficient power. In Turkey's case that means yet another Coup.

[Alyeska]

It's definitely a great example of the ends justifying the means.

If the government arrested military guys for plotting against the government, isn't this reasonable given the threat military coups pose to the elected government? If George Bush had ordered the arrest of military guys planning to oust him, would that have been good or bad?

Turkey DOES arrest generals for this very reason. Its happened just recently.

Would it have been good or bad for Bush to be arrested? It would have been satisfying. But I honestly don't know what the ramifications would have been.

Chavez over threw the Venezualian government. Hasn't exactly been good for the country. The Egyptian military refused to back Mubarak. Jury is still out on the long term results.

A military coup is not by itself a bad thing. It could result in good things, or bad things. Just like democracy could result in utopia or it could lead to the oppression of the minority.

[Stark]

Yeah Zeon mentioned it as a bad thing, like it was a provocation to the military to arrest traitors. It's bizarre how outcomes let people distort their values.

[Simon_Jester]

Yeah Zeon mentioned it as a bad thing, like it was a provocation to the military to arrest traitors. It's bizarre how outcomes let people distort their values.

There are large schools of philosophy that hold that outcomes are more important than values. Or that we should decide our values by what leads to good outcomes.

Is it any wonder that people then proceed to say things like "military coups are bad when they mean the end of democracy and the installation of a Pinochet-like tyrant, but good when they mean the end of a popular strongman who tramples on minorities and undermines the honesty of future elections."

It's definitely a great example of the ends justifying the means.

If the government arrested military guys for plotting against the government, isn't this reasonable given the threat military coups pose to the elected government? If George Bush had ordered the arrest of military guys planning to oust him, would that have been good or bad?

Good, I would say, in general. But at the same time, if George Bush had been planning with Diebold to rig the 2008 election or something, maybe having the army intervene to stop him would be better than the alternative of no one stopping him.

My question then is: is it always true in politics that the end do NOT justify the means? Many of the things a government does are rather unpleasant.

Is this such an obvious thing, that it's worse to have a state which periodically has its democracy violently reset to "secular" by a military coup, rather than having one that progressively turns out harsher and harsher on minorities and non-religious people in the community because of majority acquiescence in religious rules?

[D.Turtle]

You call bullshit, then agree with me. Very confusing.

Let me make it clear then: Democracy is not the same as majority rule.

Quoting from your earlier post:

Things that limit the power of the majority vote are inherently anti-democratic.

Bullshit.

The US has systems in place deliberately designed to give the minority power the ability to stall the government. It has laws in place to limit the government (ie, majority vote). Those are anti-democratic. But they are put in place to protect the rights of the minority.

Bullshit.

Get it? Democracy is not majority rule.
Democracy is a very broad description of a huge multitude and variety of systems that try to ensure the rule of the people.

Which requires either public support (ie Democracy), or forced upon the people (coup). Funny how that works. So to get the protections in place you have to convince the current majority that enjoys running roughshod over its opposition to voluntarily limit their power. Not exactly an easy prospect. Or you force the decision on the government through something with sufficient power. In Turkey's case that means yet another Coup.

And the current government will be in power always, because ....

Also, the previous coups have been such defenders of democracy ....

Is this such an obvious thing, that it's worse to have a state which periodically has its democracy violently reset to "secular" by a military coup, rather than having one that progressively turns out harsher and harsher on minorities and non-religious people in the community because of majority acquiescence in religious rules?

Why one or the other?

Or, to make my point clearer: How the hell do you think democratic societies develop? Do you think military coups are a good way to develop a more democratic society? Or maybe, just maybe, a democratic society develops through the political struggle that happens when groups try to undermine/abolish that democratic rule.

[Simon_Jester]

Is this such an obvious thing, that it's worse to have a state which periodically has its democracy violently reset to "secular" by a military coup, rather than having one that progressively turns out harsher and harsher on minorities and non-religious people in the community because of majority acquiescence in religious rules?

Why one or the other?

Well, I suppose you could have neither.

For example, you could have historical Britain, which hasn't needed military coups to prevent democracy from turning into rule by popular strongman.

Or you could have an outright tyranny that has always been a tyranny of some kind, and which just changes from theocratic tyranny to military dictatorship and back.

But if you have a country where, say... 30% of the population are fundamentalists, 30% are willing to acquiesce in the fundamentalists' program, and the other 40% want the right to a secular lifestyle... how do you prevent that from becoming a case of oppression against the secularists? Should you want to prevent it?

Or if a popular strongman consistently wins 55% of the vote, but is steadily undermining constitutional limits on his power and trying to set himself up as "president for life" with a network of cronies running the government for him... is that desirable, simply because the strongman keeps winning re-election?

These are realistic problems, Turtle, they're not just something I made up. I don't think I'm out of line in raising the issue.

Or, to make my point clearer: How the hell do you think democratic societies develop? Do you think military coups are a good way to develop a more democratic society? Or maybe, just maybe, a democratic society develops through the political struggle that happens when groups try to undermine/abolish that democratic rule.

Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. Democracies have collapsed before.

[Alyeska]

Get it? Democracy is not majority rule.
Democracy is a very broad description of a huge multitude and variety of systems that try to ensure the rule of the people.

Democracy is popular vote by the people. That is as it is understood by the majority of people. People vote on issues. The popular choice wins. Go ask random people what Democracy means and I bet you 90% will answer as that.

But democracy makes no claims as to being moral. It is just popular. My description of Mob Rule was simply a way to point out that a majority of people can choose to do something that could be described as morally questionable.

Quote falsely attributed to Benjamin Franklin. "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner".

Your argument over the exact meaning of democracy is a nitpick. And it does nothing to invalidate my point.

And the current government will be in power always, because ....

So because the government EVENTUALLY changes, the evil it does now is acceptable so long as we continue DEMOCRACY!

Also, the previous coups have been such defenders of democracy ....

Did you miss a few posts in this thread? I have repeatedly said that coups are anti-democratic. Once again you argue with me by saying the same things I say.

Why one or the other?

Or, to make my point clearer: How the hell do you think democratic societies develop? Do you think military coups are a good way to develop a more democratic society? Or maybe, just maybe, a democratic society develops through the political struggle that happens when groups try to undermine/abolish that democratic rule.

Democractic societies develop through a number of means. Some have been a slow transformation. Many have been at the barrel of a gun. How many democratic governments were created in a Revolution? Those aren't simple political struggles. They are brutal and bloody. How many democratic governments were created by another government forcing the issue? Like say Germany and Japan? Or a hugely popular military figure rebuilding the country from the ground up after a bloody war (Charles de Gaull)?

Goverments can form for a variety of reasons. Military dictators can keep the peace in volatile regions (Josip Tito in Yugisovia). And democracies can elect the devil (Godwin's Law!).

[Dominus Atheos]

It's definitely a great example of the ends justifying the means.

If the government arrested military guys for plotting against the government, isn't this reasonable given the threat military coups pose to the elected government? If George Bush had ordered the arrest of military guys planning to oust him, would that have been good or bad?

That question would become much more complicated if the military guys were planning on ousting Bush because he was planning to implement a theocracy and hand power back to the people, like what happened after every Turkish military coup.

[Dominus Atheos]

Maybe "working" democracy was the wrong word.

I'd argue that secularism is a requirement for democracy, or else everybody votes for theocrats; and so by protecting secularism they are ensuring (in a roundabout way) Turkish democracy.

What? How is it then democratic then when you go against the will of the people?

Okay, maybe "Democracy", not "working", was the wrong word.

All modern democracies are actually republics and it seems to me that Turkey's system of military coups are actually more republicanist than it would be without the military coups. Yes/No?

Does that wording make everyone feel better?

[Dominus Atheos]

Get it? Democracy is not majority rule.
Democracy is a very broad description of a huge multitude and variety of systems that try to ensure the rule of the people.

Alyeska was responding to Hongi and Fingolfin, who do seem to be defining democracy as simple "majority rule".

But back on topic (sort of), if the Turkish military commits a coup against the legally elected democratic government over their treatment of protesters and advancement of religion against their constitution, then follows tradition by handing power back to the people, would you call that system democratic (or at least republican)? Yes or no?

[Alyeska]

But back on topic (sort of), if the Turkish military commits a coup against the legally elected democratic government over their treatment of protesters and advancement of religion against their constitution, then follows tradition by handing power back to the people, would you call that system democratic (or at least republican)? Yes or no?

I would call it seriously broken.

[Dominus Atheos]

Does that mean you'd call it a broken democracy?

If the legitimately elected government decides to take away the right to vote and turn the country into a theocracy/whatever, what would you call that?

Edit: and can you think of a more democratic alternative, or is this the best Turkey is going to get?

[Alyeska]

Does that mean you'd call it a broken democracy?

Sure, that label seems appropriate.

If the legitimately elected government decides to take away the right to vote and turn the country into a theocracy/whatever, what would you call that?

I know way to little about the history of Turkey to make that determination. I do know that several of the coups were instigated against popularly elected governments. Theocracy does not mean democracy is taken away. It just means the religious have the strongest vote. Which is why I always knew Iraq would be a joke. Because so many people confuse Democracy with Western Morality and assume giving a country Democracy turns them into a Western country. You give Iraq a Democracy and they will vote based on their culture. Which is heavily splintered, but still very religious. Is this happening in Turkey? I don't think so. But there is still a clash of secular vs religious going on.

[Ralin]

Does that mean you'd call it a broken democracy?

If the legitimately elected government decides to take away the right to vote and turn the country into a theocracy/whatever, what would you call that?

Edit: and can you think of a more democratic alternative, or is this the best Turkey is going to get?

I'd call it functional in practice, if not in theory. At least going off of my own limited knowledge of Turkey.

[Simon_Jester]

I know way to little about the history of Turkey to make that determination. I do know that several of the coups were instigated against popularly elected governments. Theocracy does not mean democracy is taken away. It just means the religious have the strongest vote. Which is why I always knew Iraq would be a joke. Because so many people confuse Democracy with Western Morality and assume giving a country Democracy turns them into a Western country. You give Iraq a Democracy and they will vote based on their culture. Which is heavily splintered, but still very religious. Is this happening in Turkey? I don't think so. But there is still a clash of secular vs religious going on.

True.

Since the end of the Ottoman Empire, the military has mostly stuck to the plan Kemal Ataturk had for the country- the idea that Turkey would become a more modern and functional state than the old Ottomans had been, and that this would be enforced by the creation and preservation of secular institutions.

Now, you can make a case that the military should stand aside and let the Turkish people remake their country, and stop worrying about what a man 70 years dead thought his country should be. It's easy to make on "values" grounds, though a bit shakier on consequential grounds, since most of us would much prefer the sort of secular society Ataturk wanted. And would NOT prefer the kind of cronyism and religiously inspired legislation Turkey will see more of if Ataturk's ideal is abandoned.

[SomeDude]

Maybe "working" democracy was the wrong word.

I'd argue that secularism is a requirement for democracy, or else everybody votes for theocrats; and so by protecting secularism they are ensuring (in a roundabout way) Turkish democracy.

What? How is it then democratic then when you go against the will of the people?

All modern democracies are actually republics

United Kingdom?
Kingdom of the Netherlands?
Kingdom of Belgium?
Grand Duchy of Luxembourg?
Kingdom of Spain?

[K. A. Pital]

Human rights cannot be ensured without secularism. Democratic trampling of human rights by theocrats is not an acceptable scenario. Besides, representative democracy is far, far from ideal.

[AniThyng]

All modern democracies are actually republics

United Kingdom?
Kingdom of the Netherlands?
Kingdom of Belgium?
Grand Duchy of Luxembourg?
Kingdom of Spain?

Splitting hairs, as constitutional monarchies they function no differently from most presidential republics.

[fgalkin]

Confederatio Helvetica?

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin