| Author |
 Topic  |
|
BaftaBaby 
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
 Posted - 05/06/2007 : 09:48:53
|
Hi Ali
With all the election talk here in the UK and now in France, it's easy to miss what's going on in Turkey. News coverage here is a bit sketchy to say the least. So I wonder what your take is on what sounds like quite a confused situation. We're really fortunate to know someone who can share such an informed opinion.
Many thanks.
|
|
|
GHcool 
"Forever a curious character."
|
Posted - 05/06/2007 : 18:05:48
|
| I'd be interested in Ali's two cents as well, but if he prefers not to discuss his political/religious views on the Fourum, I'll respect that. |
 |
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 05/06/2007 : 23:58:18
|
| There's no point voting, the government always wins. |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper. 
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 05/07/2007 : 14:55:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by GHcool
I'd be interested in Ali's two cents as well, but if he prefers not to discuss his political/religious views on the Fourum, I'll respect that.
That would be Ali's two lira. 
|
|
|
|
Ali
"Those aren't pillows."
|
Posted - 05/07/2007 : 15:00:45
|
I am sorry; I did not see this thread until just now. I am going home now, but, sure, it'd be a pleasure to share my opinons with you tomorrow.
|
|
|
|
ChocolateLady 
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 05/08/2007 : 06:14:14
|
I'm looking forward to reading it, now that my division is in charge of Africa & Asia.
|
|
|
|
Ali
"Those aren't pillows."
|
Posted - 05/08/2007 : 09:08:57
|
I just wrote this huge piece on our election saga just now, but my antediluvian work computer went batshit crazy, and now I can't find it. Grrr.
I guess the best thing would be for you guys to ask me specific questions and I answer them as best as I can. As I said before, you can ask me anything, I have no qualms sharing my views.
|
|
|
|
BaftaBaby
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 05/08/2007 : 09:14:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ali
I just wrote this huge piece on our election saga just now, but my antediluvian work computer went batshit crazy, and now I can't find it. Grrr.
I guess the best thing would be for you guys to ask me specific questions and I answer them as best as I can. As I said before, you can ask me anything, I have no qualms sharing my views.
That's really generous, thanks Ali!
Here's a couple of starter questions ... from what I understand there haven't till now been direct elections possible in Turkey? Is that too simplistic? How does it work, and what's the role of the Assembly? How do the Assembly members get the job?
|
|
|
|
Ali
"Those aren't pillows."
|
Posted - 05/08/2007 : 09:57:30
|
My pleasure, BaftaBabe.
I think you might be confusing our presidential elections with general elections. We have had free elections since 1946 (the modern Turkish Republic was founded in 1923). Our general elections are every five-years where the 550 members of parliament are elected. We don't have an upper house (we used to until 1980) so the MP's hold all the power. As in other parliamentary democracies, the party with the majority of MP's is asked by the President to form the government.
The President, the symbolic head of the Turkish state, is a figurehead and does not wield that much power. Anyone with a university degree and over the age of 35 can be nominated for the post (50 MP's signatures are required), and they are elected by the National Assembly for a single seven-year term. What the current government is trying to introduce is a law that lets the public elect the President for a five year term, with an option to run for office one more time. Many people regard this as a regime change, and believe that wide-ranging discussions on various platforms should be conducted before any such change is even considered in the Assembly. The timetable of the upcoming snap elections, called by the government due to their inability to get their candidate elected by the current Assembly, means that such a constituiotnal change does not seem likely at this point.
|
|
|
|
BaftaBaby
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 05/08/2007 : 19:52:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ali
My pleasure, BaftaBabe.
I think you might be confusing our presidential elections with general elections. We have had free elections since 1946 (the modern Turkish Republic was founded in 1923). Our general elections are every five-years where the 550 members of parliament are elected. We don't have an upper house (we used to until 1980) so the MP's hold all the power. As in other parliamentary democracies, the party with the majority of MP's is asked by the President to form the government.
The President, the symbolic head of the Turkish state, is a figurehead and does not wield that much power. Anyone with a university degree and over the age of 35 can be nominated for the post (50 MP's signatures are required), and they are elected by the National Assembly for a single seven-year term. What the current government is trying to introduce is a law that lets the public elect the President for a five year term, with an option to run for office one more time. Many people regard this as a regime change, and believe that wide-ranging discussions on various platforms should be conducted before any such change is even considered in the Assembly. The timetable of the upcoming snap elections, called by the government due to their inability to get their candidate elected by the current Assembly, means that such a constituiotnal change does not seem likely at this point.
Ah, that's an explanation beautiful in its clarity! Thanks, Ali.
It sounds a teeny bit as though the present system owes much [except for just having one legislative house] to the UK Mother of Parliaments, with the President being a kind of cross between a Head of State and Leader of the House.
As you know, over here the Prime Minister doesn't need to be elected separately; s/he gets the job by being leader of the winning electoral party.
So, does your President always reflect the winning political party? Or does the Assembly choose him/her from other criteria? Do they tend to choose quite malleable people who won't give them a hard time?
Do you think the political situation is under more scrutiny because of the imminent possibility of joining the EU?
Sorry, didn't mean to make you the spokesperson for an entire nation  
Well -- not unless you wanna be! 
|
|
|
|
GHcool
"Forever a curious character."
|
Posted - 05/09/2007 : 01:37:26
|
| What is the difference between the president of Turkey and the prime minister of Turkey? I always thought the prime minister is a "leader" of the country and is elected in the way BaftaBabe described. Perhaps this is obvious to most Europeans, but some of us (i.e. Americans) are only vaguely familiar with parliamentry democracies. |
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 05/09/2007 : 06:20:52
|
Turkey's government sounds very much like Israel's. The President is more of a cermonial position than anything really political here. The only reason for having a President is because so many other countries consider a Prime Minister as less prestigous than a President. So when there's an international event that requires a top level official to represent Israel, we send the President instead of the PM. The only President we had that had any political influence was Ezer Weitzman, and that was his own doing.
But Ali, I understood that the problem was that there was concern that the person that they wanted for the position had too much of a religious bent, which bothered the secular community and army which wants Turkey to remain a cultural Muslim country and not allow it to become a religious Muslim country. There was concern that such a president might be able to overturn decisions of the Parliment in that area. How far off am I on that point?
|
Edited by - ChocolateLady on 05/09/2007 06:21:56 |
|
|
|
Ali
"Those aren't pillows."
|
Posted - 05/10/2007 : 09:48:06
|
It's my last week at work so I am only here sporadically (if only to be able to use the word sporadically in a sentence). I will get to these questions but it might be a few days. Sorry for any inconvenience.
-----
quote:
So, does your President always reflect the winning political party? Or does the Assembly choose him/her from other criteria? Do they tend to choose quite malleable people who won't give them a hard time?
The scrumptious ChocolateLady is correct in assuming that the Turkish President is more of a ceremonial position without any real power. They have to approve all bills passed by the parliament, but they can only use their veto twice. Should the bill get sent back to them by the Parliament for a third time, they have no choice but to approve it, though they can take the matter to the Constitutional Court (kind of like the US's Supreme Court). This was a tactic used by the incumbent during his seven year tenure.
Having said that, even though the position lacks any real power, it is, nonetheless, very symbolic if only for the fact that it was once occupied by Kemal Ataturk, the revered founder of Modern Turkey. The post is seen as a bastion of secularism, modernity and positivist thinking. This was the reason behind the recent hoopla.
Going back to BaftaBabe's original query, yes, in case of a majority government in Parliament, the President would reflect the political views of the government. However, the reality is not that simple. After the first free general elections in 1950 (the 1946 elections were only free in name since they were "open ballot, secret count"), the leader of the winning party ended up as the President of Turkey. His party was overthrown by a very popular military coup in 1960, and his successor was an older general favoured by the leaders of the military. The following two Presidents were also former four-star generals. After the 1980 military coup (also very popular - the army, seen as the vanguards of secularist positivism, has incredible grass-roots support in Turkey), the head of the military junta got elected President by the newly voted Parliament, even though he had not lent support during the elections to the majority party that eventually came to power. The next two presidents were both former prime ministers and leaders of the then-governing parties. Even though the former insisted on showing his political colours, the latter remained relatively impartial.
The current president, now at the very end of his seven year term of office, was elected during a rather turbulent time in Turkish politics when a fragile coalition government was in power. He was the-then head of the Constitutional Court, and has ended up being one of the most popular presidents the country has ever seen ("The Third Man," a secularist daily named him, after Ataturk, and his immediate successor and close associate Inonu).
As the time approached to elect a new President, the current government seemed to be extremely sure of themselves. They had a very comfortable majority in the Parliament, and it looked like their leader, the current Turkish PM, would become President. Even though they deny it vehemently, the governing party is made up of Islamists, and came to power following the worst economic crisis in the history of Turkey. Due to arcane election laws, they ended up claiming 67% of the seats in parliament with only 30% of the popular vote. Since a political party has to get over 10% of the votes nationally in order to be represented in Parliament, many other parties that got less than the requisite amount ended up not getting any MP's. In the end, 66% of the country had no representation in the parliament since the parties of the candidates they had voted for never managed to get in there.
Which was why there were incessant calls, by the public, media, big business and many-NGO's, for the government to hold talks with opposition leaders to at least come up with some sort of a compromise figure. It looked like they had done just that when, due to last minute saber-rattling by the hard liners (read ultra-Islamists) of the party, the government announced the current foreign minister, a man with a shoddy history and a wife who covers her head (there can be no signs of religious influence or preference in public and governmental buildings), as their candidate for President. There were huge public rallies (and they are still going on - the biggest might be the one that will be held this weekend in Izmir) that called for the government's resignation and for their candidate to withdraw his nomination: the government did not budge, and the first round of the elections took place in Parliament. The main opposition party took the vote to the constitutional court arguing that the meeting was not quorate. That Friday night at 11.30, the Office of the General Chief of Staff issued a statement on their website regarding the elections, and that they were concerned about attacks against secularism and democracy. There was huge support from the public once again (as attested to by the increased attendance at the pro-secular demonstrations, and the latest opinion polls), the government blinked, and decided to call for snap elections. And that's where we are today.
I hope this has been helpful. Let me know in case of any questions.
|
Edited by - Ali on 05/10/2007 13:13:16 |
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 05/10/2007 : 13:44:34
|
Very helpful indeed! Thank you.
(And now I don't feel as guilty about reading this forum during work hours!)
|
|
|
|
BaftaBaby
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 05/11/2007 : 09:18:53
|
Many thanks, again, Ali, for such a comprehensive and clear explanation. Suddenly I feel the lifting of a veil of ignorance about your richly complex country.
|
|
|
|
Whippersnapper.
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 05/11/2007 : 11:28:38
|
I understood it all anyway.
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Ali -- what's your position?
