Let me let you in on a secret:
Turkey's military is set up as a quasi-independent organization who has the right and the duty to step in and seize power whenever they feel democracy is in danger.
Sorry Zonder.. It's not much of a secret... That's been widely known for decades.. And it's the same excuse Pinochet used for overthrowing Allende in Chile.. That he was "preserving" democracy...
And you know something?? I would agree to an extent that having both the Turkish and Chilean military step in and prevent their respective societies from being hijacked by non-democratic elements (or those who would invite in Marxist patrons) was preferable to those political systems falling apart.
But that wasn't the point. The point was that Israel HASN'T HAD THE NEED TO STAGE A MILITARY COUP to prevent their government from going non-democratic. Israelis would be AGHAST at living under a non-democratic system because they LOVE to speak their minds and have their government accountable to them.
That's why, IMO, Israel is a better example of democracy than Turkey. It's not that I fault the Turkish military for doing what was "necessary", just the fact that were required to do so because there are such strong anti-democratic forces at work in their society. And this is evident today by the increasing power of the Islamic parties who, if they had the chance, would impose a totalitarian theocracy upon the nation.
And the Turkish military has lost much of its power to interfere as it's military has become less secular, and more Islamic.
As for Ataturk, there may be a cult of personality surrounding him in Turkey, but he also had a reputation for siding with Germany in WWI, while his less progressive successors showed "friendship" with Nazi Germany in WWII, conducting a brisk trade in strategic raw materials (as did Sweden). It was only in February, 1943 that Turkey actually declared war on Germany, mainly as a means to thwart Soviet influence in the region.
As for the comparison with Israel, and now that you know all of the above, I hope that you would agree that a democratic Muslim country is a much better example for the Muslim countries in the Middle East than a Jewish country that they see as a brutal occupier of one of their own.
And that's why Turkey was exercising its "influence" by continuing to violate UN sanctions against the Baathist regime in Iraq?? Why they refused to engage in overthrowing the evil that was permitted to proliferate there? Why they are attending high level meetings in Syria next week??
Hmmm....
Turkey is on the edge Zonder.. They preach democracy, but the stealthy societal influences from Islamic fundamentalism is lurking underneath, waiting to use the democratic process and overthrow it, just as the Nazis did with the Wiemar Republic. They certainly have done little that I can see to promote democratic reforms in their immediate region.
And btw, the Kurds see them as brutal occupiers also.. Even now the Turks are making threats to intervene in Northern Iraq to "protect" ethnic turks from the Kurds. What business does Turkey have in claiming ethnic linkages with these people? That would be like Israel saying they are threatening military attack to prevent Jews in a muslim country from being persecuted (but they never have, now have they?) Why doesn't Turkey just open their borders and accept these ethnic Turks back "home"?
Or is it that Turkey harbors a hidden desire to control and occupy the oil fields of Mosul and Kirkuk?
So it all depends on one's perspective. And I don't think you've considered the Kurdish perspective recently..
Hawk |
