Turkish Politics

There's also the probability of AKP losing the elections next time.

Looks like the media is showing off massive pro-demonstrations in Ankara. Even the BBC had broadcasted a pro-Erdogan supporter's thoughts on a podcast and said the protests aren't protests about the park.

I havent seen any electoral opinion polls, has anyone?

Last night Twitter was saying something about Taksim Square apparently the target of a clearing effort by Turkish police. Any word to substantiate?

BBC FAQ about the protests.

Some unions are planning to go on strike for a day in protest against the government's suppression of the protests.

When I first heard about these events I couldn't help thinking that it seems that in many ways Istanbul is still the place where important things happen in Turkey. Constantinople is still one of the centres of Europe.

For a Canadian comparison, it seems that Istanbul is to Ankara what Toronto is to Ottawa.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22938860

The Turkish government is threatening to use the army against the protestors. Not only is this really risky not only because it might just intensify the protests but also because the military might not exactly be on the government's side.

The Deep State Strikes Back?

Remember, Turkey has had several Military Coups over the years — and is secular.

And the military is quite keen on keeping things (both secularism and its power base) the way they are. And they have a bone to pick with Erdogan since he's imprisoned quite a few officers on rather dubious grounds in an effort to curb their power.

Threatening to use the military is stupid, the Turkish military are big secularists. They're more likely to remove him from power than start attacking peaceful protests.

I'd be surprised if they haven't quietly informed him to get things under control (without using too much excessive force) if he wants to keep his job yet. The military's power may have been somewhat curtailed in recent years but it takes longer than that to weaken such an entrenched institution. Especially when said institution has a lot of guns.

Well, we dont want to see a coup, and my guess is neither do the protesters. Lets hope things dont go that far.

The thing about militaries is that they are usually the most physically powerful entity within a nation. If I use an example from the Old Country, the British Army has a virtual monopoly on serious weaponry in the UK, but it, despite the various indignities heaped upon it by successive administrations, has never sought (in recent decades) to overthrow the lawful government, because it is justly proud of it's reputation as "the world's least political army"

This sheer power gives any national military a lot of wiggle room. For instance, Turkey's generals could simply refuse to obey an order to crack down on the protests but stop short of outright removing Erdogan. Or, indeed, they could choose any option on a scale ranging from "military coup" to "unqualified support", and back it up rather convincingly with a division of infantry.

edited 17th Jun '13 1:50:22 PM by Achaemenid

Wouldn't refusing to obey the crack down on the protesters be functionally equivalent of removing him from power. Without them, his power to govern becomes extremely constrained (at best) and he can't really said to be in power when he has that little control.

Not necessarily. They could allow him to suppress the protests but at the same time make it clear that the Turkish military his not Tayyip Erdogan's private army. All politicians have to deal with the fact that there are some things they cannot ask the military to do.

He would still have the police to deal with the protestors and that's all democratic governments really should use in these cases. Hell, even they have been doing things which should be unacceptable.

Using the military to quell domestic disturbances isn't completely illegal in democratic countries, but there's usually a set of procedures to go through. For instance, the US deployed the California National Guard in response to the Rodney King riots in 1992. On the other hand, the big riots in Britain two years ago saw no military response despite it arguably being big enough to warrant them, because Britain doesn't have legal procedures allowing their army to be deployed in such a situation—not even the Territorials.

In cases where they are allowed to be deployed, though, there has to be a clear sense that the local police is being completely overwhelmed, which I don't see being the case here. Deploying the military would smack of Tahrir Square.

It is deeply disturbing that Erdogan, a democratic elected politician says that foreign agents are behind the protests. Does he intent to imply that Western countries e.g. Turkeys NATO allies are trying to destabilize their partner?

Maybe he means Iranian agents?

I found it quite hard to find articles on Erdogan's blaming foreign agents for the riots (not including Russia Today, which rivals Press TV in being completely unreliable propaganda). But here's one.

He seems to be carefully shying away from naming the country responsible. But sure, pretty much every dictator ever will blame foreign powers for the fact that a sizeable chunk of their country despises them enough to go out and protest. I'm not saying Erdogan's a dictator, just that he's relying on one of their most popular defences.

If I were the protesters I'd get a load of boilerplates made and stamped with that quote.

edited 18th Jun '13 2:34:27 PM by betaalpha

This is certainly amusing. Erdogan claimed again and again that his country would be natural hegemon of the region in the tradition of the Ottoman Empire. And now the much dreaded Iranian secret service supposedly managed to inspire a big uprising in the more modern part of the country?

Yeah, they're not going to forget this for quite some time, people have paid a lotta money due to all the property damage and propaganda laying about. If it doesn't cause a revolt of some sort (which I somewhat doubt..) then someones going to get fired or thrown in prison. Heck, that's already happened. Here's what the Austrian chancellor said about it:

Turkish security forces have shown a shocking level of intimidation and violence against the demonstrators who are mostly peaceful. The Turkish Government must make every effort to ensure appropriate conduct of security forces, respect for human rights and protection of fundamental and civil rights.

Well, it has been (generally) dropping out of media coverage, which is not good news for a protest movement. This is the latest I can find on it. Thus far, all it seems to indicate is that neither side is giving ground, but security forces tend to have a lot more inertia than protesters.

An update on the issue that Sabre linked us to.

"EU delays Turkey talks amid arrests: New round postponed for at least four months as police in Ankara detain 20 people in connection with recent protests."

Here is an interesting analysis of the protest movement as a whole. The article asks: "Are the current protests in Turkey the product of democratisation that has taken place over the last decade?"

It answers: yes.

"...Some analysts eagerly described these protests as the culmination of creeping authoritarianism in Turkey. However, a better examination of Turkey's record over a decade would find it to be the exact opposite. These protests are precisely the product of the democratisation that has taken place over the past decade. Previously, the demands and interests of the secularists and the Kemalists were represented by military and civilian bureaucracy and big business in Istanbul.

The government's strict defence of these establishment groups usually resulted in the infringement of the rights of other segments of society - namely the pious segment. This is because the staunchly secular Kemalist establishment regarded itself as the sole possessor of the authority to regulate the lifestyle and the limits of the political sphere.

However, what we have been witnessing with the current protests is that ordinary citizens are becoming actors in their own right, with their own demands and liberties, not delegating this task to undemocratic and unaccountable institutions. This has happened only because the military was sent back to the barracks and the political sphere purged of the elements of the tutelage system.

Citizens have now become the principal actor on major issues, and Turkey's democracy has become noisy - a development that needs to be cherished by anyone who cares about democracy and citizen empowerment..."

This looks to be the most appropriate place to post this. The Turkish PM has announced a bunch of pro-Kurdish reforms, including allowing towns to take Kurdish names and lowering the election threshold, meaning Kurdish parties can get into parliment easier. [1]