Views of people from Turkey and Holland on statements made by Newsweek journalist Fareed Zakaria, Turkish president Abdullah Gül and prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in the Dutch VPRO documentary ‘Turkije – Het Dilemma van de Democratie’: ‘Turkey – the dilemma of democracy’ that will broadcast on 8th of October. Daily at Sargasso from October 5th until October 12th, at 13.00h (Amsterdam time, 14.00h Istanbul time). This blogging project is part of the Dutch democracy week WijZijnDeBaas (WeAreTheBoss): the Dutch contribution to the International Week for Democracy. More information here.
Elections don’t mean democracy. Elections can be very dangerous in young democracies if held in a wrong way and at a wrong time: it will appeal to a people’s hatred instead of to its hopes. (video)
Fareed Zakaria,
Newsweek journalist, 2004
Emre Kizilkaya | The Istanbulian
turkish journalist, Hürriyet newspaper, blogger.
“This is not about being a young or old democracy. The whole issue is about the election system. If the election makes the winner party (or person) the ultimate authority, it means that there is a high possibility that its consequences would not be democratic. Can you organize a referandum that would ask people if they want to abolish the democracy? If the majority says “yes”, then is it a democratic result? What if this majority is 51 percent or 99.9 percent… Does it change anything? Elections are a precondition of a democracy, but they don’t guarantee it. Only an election system that would represent and protect the interests of all parties can guarantee the democracy”.
Erkan Saka | Erkan’s field diary
blogger, thesis on Turkish journalism and the European Union, Ph.D candidate Anthropology at Rice University and instructor at the Public Relations Department of Istanbul Bilgi University.
“I fully agree with this proposition. However, elections are irreplaceable tools of democracies. Until a better tool is discovered, a democracy that claims the rule of people cannot avoid elections which seem to be one of the most powerful tools to represent people’s choices. I hear this argument from time to time in Turkey who is older than 75. There cannot be postponement. In the building of democracy elections should go hand in hand with other features of democracy. Thinking of elections again, they are so inherent part of the democratic process that any flourishing of democracy cannot happen without. Besides, Turkish Republic cannot be excused any more for her young-ness. It has already survived nearly for a century. This proposition is an elitist status quo proposition when it is thought in a social/political context. But as an abstraction, it cannot be rejected”.
Haluk Direskeneli | Energy Newsletter Turkey
blogger, energy expert.
“In Turkey, we have population of 70 million people whose average education is only 3.9 years as of year 2007. So those in the last days of 4th grade children will be choosing the best to govern themselves. So the administrators are to be advised by more educated scholars, think- tanks, NGOs where they have no/or limited expertise on all critical issues”
Beatrice Vanni | Arabisto and Turkey & My Foreign Perspectives
blogger, lives in Turkey, and helps people gain visibility for their work and attract more clients through high-quality writing, editing and project development.
“It’s true that elections aren’t the standard bearer for democracy. We see many elections held around the world that are neither free for the individual to choose nor democratic in the sense that there is a choice of candidates with differing opinions and goals for the government to succeed.
Conversely, elections should not be the primary goal for a new democracy. Placement of capable leadership and a modicum of maintenance of peace in the state must come first, and then opening the doors to freedom must be a slow yet inclusive process. Using the word “democracy” in a new state does not guarantee freedom or rights or prove that there is a democracy going on.
For Turkey, people have been free to practice their religion and seek out candidates to elect for many years along with most laws compatible with the European laws. Yes, there are a few hurdles which Turkey must still jump over, but they are few compared to the surrounding countries, both from the Middle East and former Soviet countries”.
Christine Quirk | Quirk Global Strategies
blogger, expert in political campaign and communications, worked, traveled or studied in more than 50 countries around the world.
“This is true, in part. Elections absolutely do not mean democracy. Democratic development is also measured by the degree to which a country has free media, a vibrant civil society, an independent judiciary and strong opposition parties. Each of these act as a check on the power structure. While AKP has genuine popular mandate and gained power through a free and fair election, now that it controls both parliament and the presidency I worry that there are no viable opposition parties to act as a check on its power. On the other hand, Turkey has a relatively free media, good elections, strong NGOs and an improving judiciary. Hopefully, those institutions will make sure that AKP doesn’t overstep the bounds of its mandate. It would help if a new opposition party emerged from the disaster that is CHP.
Of course, in Turkey, there’s also the military which acts as a check. Its intervention at this point would be an absolute disaster, in terms of Turkey’s democratic development. Also, Turks need to stop silencing, suing and killing people who express contrary views. That tendency really bothers me”.
Michael van der Galiën | The Gazette
blogger, frequent visitor of Turkey with interest in the politics and culture of the country, published columns in the Turkish Daily News and is correspondent in the Netherlands for Pajamas Media.
“I don’t quite see how one can argue that elections don’t mean democracy, but I do agree that when they’re held in a wrong way and at a wrong time they can be disastrous. Free elections do mean democracy, basically, they don’t mean liberal democracy. Democracy means majority rule. Sometimes, however, the majority consists out of religious fundamentalists and / or uneducated individuals. Basically, it’s fair to say that in quite some countries the masses are relatively uneducated and culturally and mentally backwards. If they are allowed to determine the fate of a country, things get nasty”.
Hans A.H.C. de Wit | Internations Musings: Istanbul, Florence, Athens, Yerevan and Dubai | blogger, international communication manager, lives in Turkey, cross cultural specialist.
“Elections are one of the pillars of democracy. And I don’t think that Turkey is a young democracy although several times interrupted by military interferences. In Turkey, not elections but nationalism during election time appeals to people their hatred”.
Joost Lagendijk | GroenLinks
Member of the European Parliament: Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, Chairman Delegation of the EU-Turkey Joint Parliamentary Committee.
“I agree in general with Zakaria, however this statement is not aplicable for Turkey, because it is not a young democracy. Even the skeptics have to admit thta the last two elections resulted in what you hope to get from a mature democracy: an expression of the views of the people based on the ideas of the present government and the opposition. In 2002 the Turkish people punished the three coalition parties for their mismanagement of the economic crisis in 2001, their involvement in the corruption and their failure to get Turkey closer to an EU membership. This resulted in a AKP government that performed better on all issues and was rewarded for this succes in july 2007. Also because the opposition did not do much more then to launch suggestive and unsubstantiated attacks and lost itself in agressive nationalism. The fact that this strategy failed is proof that democracy is deeper rooted in Turkey than in countries that Zakaria is referring to in his statement”.
William de Bruijn | VPRO Tegenlicht
Researcher VPRO Tegenlicht
“This statements fits well in the year 2004. It was an important issue because in that year the elections in Iraq for 2005 were announced. For many Iraqis voting was something a new phenomenon. Zakaria is referring to a quote of Richard Holbrooke: “You give a country elections. But what do you do when they elect the wrong people?”. FIS in Algeria, Hamas, Ahmedinejad and the ayatollah’s, the Muslim Brotherhood have made this issue even more relevant. The growing popularity of the political islam is complicating the issue. However this statement is also relevant for the political developements in former Yugoslavia, and, unfortunately also in… Belgium. For how long will the democratic powers control the ‘language powers’? Flanders, Wallonia and Brussels form a ‘mature democracy’ that becomes increasingly uncontrolable”.
Altin | Altin.nl
dutch-turkish rapper
“I partial agree with that. When there is no involvement of the people nor a representative representation of candidates then it is pure a symbolic democracy or just a democracry of the influential people for example the upperclass. However the people can make themselves heard by uprise and protests. If the system is functioning well elections should be enough. Unfortunately that’s not always the case. So involvement and participation is very important”.
The views of Lagendijk, de Bruijn and Altin were translated from Dutch, the text in Dutch is published on the website of VPRO Tegenlicht.
Reacties (17)
Certainly elections are very dangerous. In 2002 we had elections in the Netherlands, and Pim Fortuyn almost became Prime Minister. What I find strange is, that politicians like Joost Lagendijk can say that elections should be abolished for dark-skinned foreigners, but not for white ethnic Dutch, no matter how stupid their choices. It seems that Langedijk is a racist in the classic sense, believing his own ethnic group is inherently superior to others. Whites-only democracy?
@Paul,
Where did Joost L. stated that (abolish for dark-skinned..)
This is the first time I have ever seen Ahmedinejad included in a list of democratically elected leaders.
Also, in my statement, I meant to say:
It would help if a new opposition party emerged from the disaster that is CHP.
Maybe the mods can correct that…..
@Christine: Done.
The case of Pakistan is also interesting, Musharraf was absolutely not democratically chosen. But with regard to his democratically chosen predecessors, he has created a more liberal and free economic system with less corruption.
A democratical system in itself doesn’t guarantee progress to a better society. That said, I don’t think there is a better substitute as a system. Although I sometimes whish that ‘better’ politicians should be winning elections.
@ Christine Quirk #3
Formally, the theocratic republic of Iran -and even the CIA Factbook agrees- elects the president by popular vote for a four-year term (eligible for a second term and third nonconsecutive term); last held 17 June 2005 with a two-candidate runoff on 24 June 2005 (next presidential election slated for 2009)
William: your point illustrates my original post perfectly: the existence of elections does not indicate democracy, even if the CIA says so. There are no political parties in Iran, no civil society, no free media, no equal access to the ballot.
The argument that democracy exists in Iran because there are elections undermines the very notion of it. There are elections in Russia too. That’s not a democracy either.
Indeed, if you don’t allow people to run for president, what’s left over?
In my opinion the 10% threshold in Turkey is also an obstacle for fair elections.
Christine, my point was that the rise of islamic and/or islamist parties/voices in politics is just as much a reality as dictatorship/’enlightened despotism’ in the Middle East.
And it illustrates the complexity of the matter, far beyond the holding of elections, exactly. Iran is definitely ‘not free’, in Freedomhouse index terms. But how do you asses which part of the population (still) supports the islamic revolution and the current theocracy? With a ridumentary civil society much of the discontent will be channeled through the mosques.
Thus we arrive at Zakaria’s quote of today: how to organically develop democracy where it is not (yet) rooted?
Islamist parties are banned in the United States, and Islamists are locked up in Guantanamo Bay – or flown to airbases in Poland to be tortured. The media in the USA are not free either: Osama bin Laden can not run a newspaper there, or a TV station. In the Netherlands, asylum-seekers are not allowed to vote, not allowed to establish political parties, run a newspaper, and they are locked up in detention centres. The ‘nice tolerant Jewish mayor’ of Amsterdam imprisons African children in military detention centres.
Of course, the racists say “that’s different”. But it isn’t different. The Netherlands and the United States are not ‘more free’ than Iran, they are a mirror image of it. The US persecutes its enemies, and so does Iran. Iranians don’t generally like Jews, and that shows up in Iran’s policies. But the Dutch generally don’t like Moroccans or Turks or West Africans, and that shows up in Dutch government policies too. Americans don’t generally like Hispanic immigrants, or Arabs, and that certainly shows up in US policies.
Probably, most Iranians support the anti-Israel polices of the present government. Fear of reprisals aside, they would probably be happy to see a nuclear attack on Israel. Neo-conservative assumptions, that the majority in such countries are secretly pro-western and especially pro-American, waiting to be ‘liberated’ by US troops, proved false in Iraq. They would prove false in Iran.
Describing non-European states as not a real democracy is simply a way of evading ethical examination of democracy itself. The faults of the Iranian government are primarily because it reflects the views of the people. The faults of the US and Dutch governments are also due to democracy. And the ethical issues don’t stop there.
The government of Saudi Arabia punishes gay men with 7000 lashes. Saudi Arabia is certainly not a democracy. But who is trying to overthrow the Saudi government? The Islamists. And who is trying to defend Saudi Arabia against the Islamists? The United States. So, should the US Army overthrow George W. Bush, because he supports such barbaric cruelty against gays? If democracy is right, then is a democratic decision to support a non-democracy also right?
@Paul,
There is http://ippausa.org/ a true Islamist party in the USA, like there is a Communist party there as well, with 500.000> members.
Freedom of expression is another topic. Laters.
Islamist parties, and individuals with Islamist political goals, are banned in the USA…
Executive Order 13224 blocking Terrorist Property and a summary of the
Terrorism Sanctions Regulations (Title 31 Part 595 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations), Terrorism List Governments Sanctions Regulations (Title 31 Part 596 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations), and Foreign Terrorist Organizations Sanctions Regulations (Title 31 Part 597 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations)
PDF, 113 pages of banned organisations and individuals. The US Government is no more “free” than the Iranian government, or the former Taliban regime, they just target different people.
@Paul
Terrorism and for example being a gay are two different stories.
Under the Patriot act are a lot of people detained.
But do women and men have the same rights in Iran and USA?
There is more space for journalists in the USA than in Iran. And what about education. All this makes Turkey stuck between the two bad guys.
Also: you can not compare apples with oranges.
The Netherlands is not a free country either, it bans political parties, see the EU list of banned GROUPS AND ENTITIES
1. Abu Nidal Organisation (ANO), (a.k.a. Fatah Revolutionary Council, Arab Revolutionary Brigades, Black September, and Revolutionary Organisation of Socialist Muslims)
2. Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigade
3. Al-Aqsa e.V.
4. Al-Takfir and Al-Hijra
5. Aum Shinrikyo (a.k.a. AUM, a.k.a. Aum Supreme Truth, a.k.a. Aleph)
6. Babbar Khalsa
7. Communist Party of the Philippines, including New Peoples Army (NPA), Philippines, linked to Sison Jose Maria
C. (a.k.a. Armando Liwanag, a.k.a. Joma, in charge of the Communist Party of the Philippines, including NPA)
8. Gama’a al-Islamiyya (Islamic Group), (a.k.a. Al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya, IG)
9. Great Islamic Eastern Warriors Front (IBDA-C)
10. Hamas (including Hamas-Izz al-Din al-Qassem)
11. Hizbul Mujahideen (HM)
12. Hofstadgroep
13. Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development
14. International Sikh Youth Federation (ISYF)
15. Kahane Chai (Kach)
16. Khalistan Zindabad Force (KZF)
17. Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), (a.k.a. KADEK; a.k.a. KONGRA-GEL)
18. Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE)
19. Mujahedin-e Khalq Organisation (MEK or MKO) [minus the ‘National Council of Resistance of Iran’ (NCRI)] (a.k.a. The National Liberation Army of Iran (NLA, the militant wing of the MEK), the People’s Mujahidin of Iran (PMOI), Muslim Iranian Students’ Society)
20. National Liberation Army (Ejército de Liberación Nacional)
21. Palestine Liberation Front (PLF)
22. Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ)
23. Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP)
24. Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine — General Command (a.k.a PFLP — General Command)
25. Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC)
26. Revolutionary People’s Liberation Army/Front/Party (DHKP/C) (a.k.a. Devrimci Sol (Revolutionary Left), Dev Sol)
27. Shining Path (SL) (Sendero Luminoso)
28. Stichting Al Aqsa (a.k.a. Stichting Al Aqsa Nederland, a.k.a. Al Aqsa Nederland)
29. TAK — Teyrbazen Azadiya Kurdistan, a.k.a. Kurdistan Freedom Falcons, Kurdistan Freedom Hawks
30. United Self-Defense Forces/Group of Colombia (AUC) (Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia)
Source: ENL 169/62 Official Journal of the European Union 29.6.2007
These are armed ‘political’ parties.
We can invite them over…maybe they can restore the ‘order’ in the Netherlands?..)
Hakan
08-10-07 21:58 10Turkey will never be a member of the western European countries. Maybe member of the EU. But it will always be 1 step behind the top countries. When Turkey is a member, then is the United States of Europe (USE) complete. Like the change in 1991 when the EC become the EU. Turkey is member since 1995 of the old EC (the Custum Union). Thus do the math..
Turkey will get richer. Absolutly. They have the potential. Like the 5 asian tigers and other examples. They will even be richer than most of the 1st world countries. But Turkey never will change to a Christian land. Thus it will never be at the other side off the table.
Hakan
Hi Hakan,
I agree, i think Turkey has a bright future ahead..
I think the EU allows enough room for different countries… Look at how the UK manages to have a different status for decades, or how Poland can hold the EU for ransom, or even how Holland can become a difficult partner. I think that doesn’t matter so much. You don’t have to be in the Berlin Paris axis to achieve results in Europe, or to be a force to be reckoned with…