Tweet
TURKEY'S TOO IMPORTANT TO DISMISS ITS REFERENDUM AS A ROWDY SQUABBLE
Simon Tisdall
guardian.co.uk
Thursday 9 September 2010 13.59 BST
A no vote may undermine Erdoğan's stabilising role in the region
Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's government will be weakened if Turks vote
no in the referendum on constitutional amendments. Photograph:
Umit Bektas/Reuters
Proposed reforms to Turkey's constitution, the subject of a national
referendum on Sunday, appear largely unexceptional to western eyes.
But after months of impassioned, increasingly polarised campaigning,
the vote has effectively transformed into a plebiscite on the
eight-year rule of the prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, and
his neo-Islamist AK party. The outcome has potentially dramatic
implications for Turkey's future regional and international role.
A string of amendments intended to strengthen individuals, trade
union and privacy rights are mostly uncontroversial. So, too, is a
proposal to try military personnel accused of crimes against the state
in civilian courts - although the army doubtless views it as another
assault on its autonomy. It is Erdoğan's plan to change the way judges
and prosecutors are appointed that has got the opposition up in arms.
They say the proposal is part of the AKP's "creeping coup" against the
secular state bequeathed by Turkey's founding father, Kemal Ataturk.
By attempting to increase executive control over the judiciary, as he
as already done over the military, Erdoğan is accused of dangerous
"Putinist" authoritarianism, of pursuing a covert Islamist agenda,
and of seeking to create an all-powerful presidency that he himself
will one day occupy.
Erdoğan's replies that the reforms will strengthen Turkey's democracy
after decades of military meddling and reinforce its credentials as
an EU candidate. In typically combative style, he declared this week
that people who voted no were in effect defending the 1980 military
coup that created the current constitution. He also warned a business
group that it faced "elimination" if it opposed him, a threat that
brought a sharp rebuke from the European commission.
The overheated debate has divided Turkish opinion, with recent polls
suggesting the vote is too close to call. Writing in Today's Zaman,
Bulent Keneş said the tactics of the main opposition party, the
Kemalist Republican People's party (CHP), had been shameful.
"There must be a sizable group of CHP supporters who are considerably
disturbed by the unethical and ruthless 'no' campaign based on lies,
threats, defamation and smears being conducted under the leadership
of Kemal Kılıcdaroğlu," he wrote. Kılıcdaroğlu was "a big imaginary
balloon" who would pop when the "yes" campaign triumphed.
Speaking for the other side and decrying what he termed the "creeping
counter-revolution", Hurriyet columnist Burak Bekdil argued that by
lumping together disparate constitutional amendments, some worthwhile,
some not, Erdoğan had presented Turks with an impossibly simplistic
choice. "We must respect the popular vote ... but worshipping the
popular vote is a dangerous thing," Bekdil said. "Presenting the
popular vote as the sole prerequisite for democracy is malevolence.
Reverence to malevolence in the name of autocratic liberalism is
distasteful buffoonery."
In a leading article Hurriyet said many Turks felt the reforms
did not go far enough, for example in securing media freedoms,
while others would vote no just to punish the AKP. But the paper's
main objection was the way it said both Erdoğan and the opposition
were cynically manipulating public opinion. Their conduct "has been
almost completely devoid of candour, statesmanship and commitment to
democratic principles," it said.
Kurdish leaders complain meanwhile that their aspirations have been
ignored in the rewritten constitution, despite Erdoğan's earlier
promise of a complete overhaul.
Analysts say a yes victory on Sunday could launch Erdoğan and the AKP
towards a third, successive election triumph next year. Defeat could
unsettle Turkey's impressive economic recovery, encourage reactionary
elements within the military, increase religious tensions, and further
obstruct attempts to resolve the Kurdish question.
More importantly perhaps, for the outside world, a no vote, and a
subsequent weakening of the government's position could undermine
Turkey's ambitious outreach to problematic neighbours. Turkey's
strategic importance as a moderating influence and a sometimes
controversial go-between, official or otherwise, in the west's dealings
with Iran, Iraq, and Syria has grown rapidly in recent years.
Recent setbacks notwithstanding, Ankara has also developed an
influential, stabilising role in the Caucasus, particularly concerning
disputes affecting Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan, and in the
Balkans. Speaking in Bosnia last week, President Abdullah Gul urged
all Balkan countries to follow Turkey in seeking full integration
into Nato and the EU and, like Turkey, to exploit their geographical
position as an east-west crossroads for commerce, trade and energy.
Viewed in this context, Sunday's vote is much more than a rowdy,
internal squabble. The outcome could potentially shape or disrupt
future developments across south-east Europe and the near east. And
for Britain and a blinkered, disengaged EU, it highlights once again
how exceptionally important Turkey is becoming.
From: A. Papazian
Simon Tisdall
guardian.co.uk
Thursday 9 September 2010 13.59 BST
A no vote may undermine Erdoğan's stabilising role in the region
Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's government will be weakened if Turks vote
no in the referendum on constitutional amendments. Photograph:
Umit Bektas/Reuters
Proposed reforms to Turkey's constitution, the subject of a national
referendum on Sunday, appear largely unexceptional to western eyes.
But after months of impassioned, increasingly polarised campaigning,
the vote has effectively transformed into a plebiscite on the
eight-year rule of the prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, and
his neo-Islamist AK party. The outcome has potentially dramatic
implications for Turkey's future regional and international role.
A string of amendments intended to strengthen individuals, trade
union and privacy rights are mostly uncontroversial. So, too, is a
proposal to try military personnel accused of crimes against the state
in civilian courts - although the army doubtless views it as another
assault on its autonomy. It is Erdoğan's plan to change the way judges
and prosecutors are appointed that has got the opposition up in arms.
They say the proposal is part of the AKP's "creeping coup" against the
secular state bequeathed by Turkey's founding father, Kemal Ataturk.
By attempting to increase executive control over the judiciary, as he
as already done over the military, Erdoğan is accused of dangerous
"Putinist" authoritarianism, of pursuing a covert Islamist agenda,
and of seeking to create an all-powerful presidency that he himself
will one day occupy.
Erdoğan's replies that the reforms will strengthen Turkey's democracy
after decades of military meddling and reinforce its credentials as
an EU candidate. In typically combative style, he declared this week
that people who voted no were in effect defending the 1980 military
coup that created the current constitution. He also warned a business
group that it faced "elimination" if it opposed him, a threat that
brought a sharp rebuke from the European commission.
The overheated debate has divided Turkish opinion, with recent polls
suggesting the vote is too close to call. Writing in Today's Zaman,
Bulent Keneş said the tactics of the main opposition party, the
Kemalist Republican People's party (CHP), had been shameful.
"There must be a sizable group of CHP supporters who are considerably
disturbed by the unethical and ruthless 'no' campaign based on lies,
threats, defamation and smears being conducted under the leadership
of Kemal Kılıcdaroğlu," he wrote. Kılıcdaroğlu was "a big imaginary
balloon" who would pop when the "yes" campaign triumphed.
Speaking for the other side and decrying what he termed the "creeping
counter-revolution", Hurriyet columnist Burak Bekdil argued that by
lumping together disparate constitutional amendments, some worthwhile,
some not, Erdoğan had presented Turks with an impossibly simplistic
choice. "We must respect the popular vote ... but worshipping the
popular vote is a dangerous thing," Bekdil said. "Presenting the
popular vote as the sole prerequisite for democracy is malevolence.
Reverence to malevolence in the name of autocratic liberalism is
distasteful buffoonery."
In a leading article Hurriyet said many Turks felt the reforms
did not go far enough, for example in securing media freedoms,
while others would vote no just to punish the AKP. But the paper's
main objection was the way it said both Erdoğan and the opposition
were cynically manipulating public opinion. Their conduct "has been
almost completely devoid of candour, statesmanship and commitment to
democratic principles," it said.
Kurdish leaders complain meanwhile that their aspirations have been
ignored in the rewritten constitution, despite Erdoğan's earlier
promise of a complete overhaul.
Analysts say a yes victory on Sunday could launch Erdoğan and the AKP
towards a third, successive election triumph next year. Defeat could
unsettle Turkey's impressive economic recovery, encourage reactionary
elements within the military, increase religious tensions, and further
obstruct attempts to resolve the Kurdish question.
More importantly perhaps, for the outside world, a no vote, and a
subsequent weakening of the government's position could undermine
Turkey's ambitious outreach to problematic neighbours. Turkey's
strategic importance as a moderating influence and a sometimes
controversial go-between, official or otherwise, in the west's dealings
with Iran, Iraq, and Syria has grown rapidly in recent years.
Recent setbacks notwithstanding, Ankara has also developed an
influential, stabilising role in the Caucasus, particularly concerning
disputes affecting Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan, and in the
Balkans. Speaking in Bosnia last week, President Abdullah Gul urged
all Balkan countries to follow Turkey in seeking full integration
into Nato and the EU and, like Turkey, to exploit their geographical
position as an east-west crossroads for commerce, trade and energy.
Viewed in this context, Sunday's vote is much more than a rowdy,
internal squabble. The outcome could potentially shape or disrupt
future developments across south-east Europe and the near east. And
for Britain and a blinkered, disengaged EU, it highlights once again
how exceptionally important Turkey is becoming.
From: A. Papazian