.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Born at the Crest of the Empire

Tuesday, May 01, 2007

Picture of the Day - 2
















Riot police officers confront May Day protesters as they block the entrance to Taksim Square in Istanbul, Turkey, May 1, 2007. (AP article)



posted by mikevotes at 8:50 AM

6 Comments:

  • I feel better now, know the police and military are holding a tight rein on Turkish democracy... (he said, dripping with sarcasm)

    tick, tick, tick...

    By Blogger -epm, at 10:17 AM  

  • I looked into it after your comment yesterday.

    By Blogger mikevotes, at 11:14 AM  

  • As I said, Mike, I really don't know anything about Turkey. Well, I know some things, but very little in the way of learned examination.

    It's never a good sign when the military intervenes in the normal workings of the democratic process... Even when they're doing it for the "right" reasons it's just very disturbing. (Musharaf, Sha of Iran, etc..)

    By Blogger -epm, at 11:32 AM  

  • True, but again, within the history of Turkey, such an intervention although extreme, would not represent a major departure from the past.

    It's not like a traditional coup where a strongman takes over and crushes dissent.

    I'd say it's more like the recent coup in Thailand, which, although a definitely non-constitutional, within the historical framework, not totally unsettling.

    I'm not saying this would be a good thing, but withing the context of the country, if the military does what it has done before, it's not likely to launch a civil war or create a tyrant or a black hole, you know?

    By Blogger mikevotes, at 12:41 PM  

  • From the BBC online:

    "Mr Gul [just-annulled president] and Mr Erdogan [prime minister] are both from AK, which has Islamist roots and an overwhelming majority in parliament. They deny there is any hidden agenda.

    But the BBC's Sarah Rainsford in Istanbul says the army had made it clear it would not tolerate Mr Gul as president."

    If the AK has an "overwhelming" majority in parliament, I (perhaps mistakenly) read this to mean they have the support of the majority of the population. Therefore, I further assumed, the election of Mr. Gul was not seen as a bad thing by the majority of Turks. If this is true, then the army's intervention on behalf of the minority position can be seen as inflammatory.

    The rightness or wrongness of the army's intervention notwithstanding, I can't help but wonder if its actions will bolster extremist Islamist elements and sway public sympathy to their cause. Will the army's actions create more sectarian sympathizers than it dissuades? Will it ratchet up the so far only rhetorical conflict?

    Jumping way ahead of the game -- perhaps beyond all reason -- how long before we hear Bush accuse Iran and Syrian of meddling in Turkey and supporting "radical elements" and "bad actors?"

    I know, I know... but let a man have his rants. :)

    By Blogger -epm, at 1:43 PM  

  • From my understanding, the majority is firmly on the side of secularism.

    They had a middle east reporter on somewhere yesterday who said that it's roughly 70% who stand on the secular side.

    Also remember in all this, that we're not really talking about Islamic radicals here.

    One of the biggest knocks on Gul is that his wife wears a headscarf, and if you've seen pictures, it's a minimal haircovering.

    This dispute is not on the same level as alot of the Islamic government issues.

    The instability in the government is a big deal, but even if Gul were to win, Turkey's not going to the Taleban, Islamic Courts Union, or Iran's mullahs.

    At the very worst, we're talking about very minor Islamic influence on the government akin to the Religious Right's influence here.

    The Turks are fiercely secular.

    So, don't freak out.

    By Blogger mikevotes, at 1:59 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home