1. Comment #35946 by denoir on April 29, 2007 at 12:33 pm

The Turkish situation is a tough one - you have secularism as one option and democracy as the other.

Turkey is a secular state with the military having the responsibility of keeping it that way. On the other side you have the population that yearn for an Islamic theocracy (the protesters represent a minority). Nationalism is sort of a compromise solution - something that appeals to the masses but doesn't threaten the secular system of the country.

Without draconian measures such as this censorship, the gap between the religious people and the guardians of secularism would rapidly increase to the point where you could expect an Islamic revolution like the one in Iran.


People forget how Ataturk made the country secular - by excessive bloodshed and repression. The majority of the Turks never wanted to be secular and are still very much opposed to it. The relevant question is: do you allow your democracy to self-implode? Do you allow the election of a party that will eliminate democracy completely - not to mention freedom of speech, secularism etc


Of course their whole arrangement makes joining the EU any time soon very unlikely. This in turn gives them a sense of rejection which pushes the country towards Islamic government. If on the other hand the EU supports their fight for secularism, which takes from as limits on civil liberties, it is betraying its own principles. Not an entirely trivial situation.

Other Comments by denoir

2. Comment #35948 by MIND_REBEL on April 29, 2007 at 12:44 pm

Democracy is not a good or responsible option for theistic populations like in the middle east.

Other Comments by MIND_REBEL

3. Comment #35950 by Gurnet on April 29, 2007 at 12:48 pm

Mind_Rebel: so whose job is it to bestow these "options" you write of onto populations like in the Middle East?

Other Comments by Gurnet

4. Comment #35954 by Johan on April 29, 2007 at 2:02 pm

Secularism in Turkey unfortunately has a bit of a bitter taste since many secularists are leaning towards fascism/nationalism, and are called "Kurtlar" (wolfs) in Turkish. Fascism/nationalism in Turkey is for many Turks just another dogma that they more or less consciously masquerade as secularism. (Pardon me for generalizing) This is mindset of the people behind the Armenian Dink's assassination, the charge against Orhan Pamuk for being disrespectful of the "Turkishness".

Under the title of the daily newspaper Hürriyet it reads "Türkiye türklerin'dir" which translates as Turkey belongs to the Turks. Imagine if some German newspaper wrote Deutschland den Deutschen (Germany to the Germans) or a newspaper of any other nationality for that matter would make a statement of that sort. It would be outrageous.

Other Comments by Johan

5. Comment #35956 by ghostbuster on April 29, 2007 at 2:29 pm

I am apt to think of the ancient quote "the best form of government is democracy tempered by assination".

Other Comments by ghostbuster

6. Comment #35966 by Azven on April 29, 2007 at 3:27 pm

Assination?

Other Comments by Azven

7. Comment #35969 by Macho Nachos on April 29, 2007 at 3:38 pm

It's another word for religion.

Other Comments by Macho Nachos

8. Comment #35974 by Fouad Boussetta on April 29, 2007 at 4:21 pm

A democratic state is absolutely incompatible with political Islam the same way it is absolutely incompatible with National-Socialism.

Are we forgetting that Adolf Hitler got elected democratically?

It seems obvious to me that all parties with totalitarian, anti-democratic ideologies should be banned outright in all democratic states.

That's because should they access power, they will automatically seek to destroy the very democracy that allowed them to exist in the first place.

I am not only thinking about political parties whose program is based on religion, but also the parties of the extreme right and the extreme left.

Other Comments by Fouad Boussetta

9. Comment #35978 by BaronOchs on April 29, 2007 at 4:47 pm

Adolf Hitler got elected democratically?

Ir should be taken into account they garnered some extra necessary votes by joining with the smaller nationalist party at the last minute, and then only got the enabling law passed by using the SA to round up opponents on the day of the vote.

they did receive necessary support in the elections but they were not properly elected to the position they actually assumed.

Other Comments by BaronOchs

10. Comment #35987 by steveroot on April 29, 2007 at 6:12 pm

9. Comment #35978 by BaronOchs on April 29, 2007 at 4:47 pm
Adolf Hitler got elected democratically?

they did receive necessary support in the elections but they were not properly elected to the position they actually assumed.

Deja vu all over again. ;-)
Steve ("Chad")

Other Comments by steveroot

11. Comment #36006 by Veronique on April 29, 2007 at 9:03 pm

2. Comment #35948 by MIND_REBEL

You will probably appreciate the excerpts from a book callled The Ultimate Tragedy by Abid Ullah Jan. I came across an article he wrote and responded to him. He then sent me the site:

http://www.icssa.org/article_detail_parse.php?a_id=824&rel=

I guarantee you will like reading what he has to say about democracy and the middle east. There is also a lot of history of empire in this particular book as it relates to the middle east over the past 700 odd years.

I have only just started to look at the site, so I can't tell you much except that I know you'll like it.

Enjoy
V

Other Comments by Veronique

12. Comment #36007 by madhatter on April 29, 2007 at 9:21 pm

This is the point of *Constitutional* democracy, one feels. Basic principles like secularism should not be overridden by a simple majority.

Other Comments by madhatter

13. Comment #36010 by Russell Blackford on April 29, 2007 at 9:29 pm

Denoir, don't you think it's a bit of an exaggeration to say that a majority of Turks yearn for an Islamic theocracy? I've never seen any solid evidence of that ... and my own guess is that it's far from being the majority view in Turkey. Admittedly, my guess is based on anecdotal evidence, i.e. from quite a small amount of time spent there. But I'd be amazed if support for an Islamic theocracy was the majority view. That isn't to say that the majority of Turks are fully secular, but there's a lot of pride in the modern country's secular tradition, and there's also a huge group of Muslims who may take their religion seriously but are socially and politically moderate.

I still have high hopes for Turkey.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

14. Comment #36013 by MelM on April 29, 2007 at 10:28 pm

The Turkish military has intervened before and Turkey has come out of it ok.

Democracy does not equal freedom.
I am not interested in substituting the "will of the people" for the "will of God". I want my rights and if it takes the military to push back a takeover by an oppressive theocracy, then I'd prefer that. It's freedom that's most important and democracy does not equal freedom. The Bill-of-Rights exists to protect individuals from the government which is elected. Hell, once a theocracy comes to power in Turkey, it will either kill or retire the secularists in the military and then Turkey is stuck with no way out of the theocracy. These days, when I hear people talk about democracy as the primary base of government, I know damn well they're not interested, fundamentally, in freedom--they're trying to get away with something. Example: Bush!

The U.S. Dominionists hate Federal courts.
In the U.S., notice the Dominionist hatred for the Federal courts and the attempts to keep some laws away from review by the courts. This allows a bunch of my neighbors to make whatever laws they damn well want and keep me from even going to court to protect myself. Any nation whose priority goes to democracy instead of rights is going to loose their rights sooner or later.

Turkey is lucky to have a secular military.
The U.S. call for letting democracy have control of the outcome--no matter what--is really an outrage. Nobody has a right to impose tyranny by voting. And, once a tyranny takes power, it's not long before democracy is lost as well. That Bush would allow some ritualistic exercize of "democracy" to impose a death cult on Turkey is just disgusting. When democracy ceases to be an aid in keeping freedom and an emergency is at hand, then a coup is ok. Turkey is lucky if it has a military that will save it from disaster; when the time comes, the U.S. won't be so fortunate.

Other Comments by MelM

15. Comment #36017 by denoir on April 29, 2007 at 11:21 pm

Russell Blackford:

Denoir, don't you think it's a bit of an exaggeration to say that a majority of Turks yearn for an Islamic theocracy? I've never seen any solid evidence of that ... and my own guess is that it's far from being the majority view in Turkey.

Um, I'm not guessing - I'm talking election results. The ruling party with the largest support, AKP is a thinly veiled islamist party. No, not islamic - islamist. You know - world caliphate and islam as the supreme law - all those goodies.

Once they get banned (which they almost certainly will), they'll join three or four former majority parties that were banned before them.

It's the same thing that happened in Algeria and in Egypt - the popular islamist movements were banned once they were in position of winning elections (or had won them). In Turkey, the military has had a hands-on approach to islamism, resulting in military coup d'états in 1960, 1971, 1980 and 1997. Most likely if the popular presidential candidate wins the current elections, there will be another military takeover.

Admittedly, my guess is based on anecdotal evidence, i.e. from quite a small amount of time spent there.

That's the problem with anecdotal evidence - too little data is actually worse than no data if you start generalizing. Istanbul and Ankara are pro-western and secular. The country side - where the majority lives - are religious nuts in the best Mid East fashion.

Other Comments by denoir

16. Comment #36028 by Russell Blackford on April 30, 2007 at 2:02 am

Denoir: I quite candidly stated that my view was based on limited experience of Turkey. From your (rather patronising) reply, anyone would think that I'd expressed myself in some dogmatic manner, when the exact opposite is the case.

That said, I'm well aware of the election results you referred to, but lots of people vote for political parties for all sorts of confused and confusing reasons. It's difficult to draw inferences from something like that. I'd love to see some decent qualitative research addressing whether those rural folks really want something like the Taliban regime imposed on them.

Still, you may be right ... and in any event, I don't doubt that the educated, urban, Westernised people in Istanbul and Ankara have a real problem. On the other hand, Turkey is still a helluva lot better than the other Muslim nations of the Middle East - those people in Istanbul and Ankara are never going to accept a theocratic regime easily.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

17. Comment #36030 by simplemind on April 30, 2007 at 2:32 am

Comment #35946 by denoir
People forget how Ataturk made the country secular - by excessive bloodshed and repression

And just who exactly were repressed?
I have read many books on Ataturk probably the best of which was by Mango and i cant say i saw anything of repression.
Infact i would have to say fairly the opposite.

Other Comments by simplemind

18. Comment #36054 by mrjonno on April 30, 2007 at 4:27 am

There is no such thing as bad goverment only bad people who support them (whether in a democracy or dictatorship).

I don't know which way Turkey will go buts its absurd that the issues there can be dealt with from the top ie the army for any length of time.

From what I've seen of Turkey its heavily divided into the 'Western' parts which are pretty much like any other secular democracy (but a different background religion and architecture) and the poorer parts where people get married of at 12 and where most cannot read or write

Other Comments by mrjonno

19. Comment #36067 by Riley on April 30, 2007 at 5:27 am

mrjonno wrote: "There is no such thing as bad government only bad people who support them (whether in a democracy or dictatorship)."

No, I think that a country can contain a majority of good people, but be manipulated by a bad few in control of government. Even in a democracy, if the government is poorly structured, a few "bad people" can control a majority of "good people" by dividing and conquering.

Democracy is not enough, other institutions and perhaps a constitution are necessary to create essential decentralization of power and properly directed incentives.

Government's are systems and institutions that can be well designed or poorly designed. Without proper structure, a democracy will reflect whatever power group most successfully manipulates information and access.

The Islamic party in Turkey, did not receive a majority of voter support --- as a party, it is the largest unified political block, but it does not represent a majority of Turkish citizens.

Other Comments by Riley

20. Comment #36085 by evren on April 30, 2007 at 6:42 am

Dear All,

Thanks for all your comments. I am Turkish and I was there on Sunday. It is not true that many people are against secularism in Turkey. Although it is true that AK party got the highest votes. (I am not sure about the exact numbers but they received approx 25% so there is another 75% that supports other parties or do not vote). So it would be wrong to say that most people in Turkey wants an Islamic theocracy (I am sure most people did not have this in mind when they were voting for AK Party as well). Unfortunately they have their democratic right to be selected and have the right to select the president. The problem is, if the president and prime minister is against secularism they have the right to change every constitution, education program etc. Unfortunately our European friends are very short sighted and they do not want us in Europe in the coming 50 years or so. This pushes Turkey towards east. I hope they do not want to see a country like Iran in their border. Unfortunately I am not positive. Any way life is still beautiful.
Evren

Other Comments by evren

21. Comment #36097 by mrjonno on April 30, 2007 at 7:32 am

No, I think that a country can contain a majority of good people, but be manipulated by a bad few in control of government. Even in a democracy, if the government is poorly structured, a few "bad people" can control a majority of "good people" by dividing and conquering.

Have to disagree with you on that, no constitution or institute is any better than the people who work in it.
If 99% of the population want to exterminate the other 1% no law on earth will stop them.

The fact is most people are just indifferent

Other Comments by mrjonno

22. Comment #36130 by Druid on April 30, 2007 at 8:52 am

Dear Denoir,
I am living in Turkey. You are wrong about that secularists are minority here. AKP is elected because society was looking for a chance to adjust economical conditions after the 2001 crisis. Many votes to AKP were due to this reason. Meanwhile, AKP administration said before election that they, who had implied, about ten years ago, eliminatation of secularism was the target many times, had changed their mind about secularism and about western world, and there were people who voted for AKP even within secularist block due to this reason.
Whatever the reason was, we are here, we do not think to give up defending secularism and we are not minority.
I also would like to express my gladness to see the demonstration on BBC and CNN.
Sincerely.

Other Comments by Druid

23. Comment #36160 by kkant on April 30, 2007 at 10:48 am

Denoir writes:
The Turkish situation is a tough one - you have secularism as one option and democracy as the other....People forget how Ataturk made the country secular - by excessive bloodshed and repression. The majority of the Turks never wanted to be secular and are still very much opposed to it. The relevant question is: do you allow your democracy to self-implode? Do you allow the election of a party that will eliminate democracy completely - not to mention freedom of speech, secularism etc.

This is why a constitution is important. A constitution-less democracy allows for the tyranny of the majority, as evidenced by the conundrum you bring up above. A constitution affirming basic human freedoms and rights goes a long way towards solving this problem. Constitutions can be changed, of course, but not as easily.


MelM writes:
It's freedom that's most important and democracy does not equal freedom. The Bill-of-Rights exists to protect individuals from the government which is elected. Hell, once a theocracy comes to power in Turkey, it will either kill or retire the secularists in the military and then Turkey is stuck with no way out of the theocracy. These days, when I hear people talk about democracy as the primary base of government, I know damn well they're not interested, fundamentally, in freedom--they're trying to get away with something. Example: Bush!...The U.S. call for letting democracy have control of the outcome--no matter what--is really an outrage. Nobody has a right to impose tyranny by voting. And, once a tyranny takes power, it's not long before democracy is lost as well.

I absolutely agree. Very well said.


mrjonno writes:
Have to disagree with you on that, no constitution or institute is any better than the people who work in it.
If 99% of the population want to exterminate the other 1% no law on earth will stop them.

When such a situation gets out of hand and we start seeing murder and torture from this 99/1 effect, that is where I think the genocide convention comes in. We don't want to see another Hitler happen.
http://www.preventgenocide.org/law/convention/text.htm


Druid writes:
I also would like to express my gladness to see the demonstration on BBC and CNN.

I agree. In my view the people who demonstrated in Turkey for secular values and human rights are heroes.

Other Comments by kkant

24. Comment #36161 by kkant on April 30, 2007 at 10:49 am

evren writes:
Thanks for all your comments. I am Turkish and I was there on Sunday. It is not true that many people are against secularism in Turkey. Although it is true that AK party got the highest votes. (I am not sure about the exact numbers but they received approx 25% so there is another 75% that supports other parties or do not vote). So it would be wrong to say that most people in Turkey wants an Islamic theocracy (I am sure most people did not have this in mind when they were voting for AK Party as well). Unfortunately they have their democratic right to be selected and have the right to select the president. The problem is, if the president and prime minister is against secularism they have the right to change every constitution, education program etc. Unfortunately our European friends are very short sighted and they do not want us in Europe in the coming 50 years or so. This pushes Turkey towards east. I hope they do not want to see a country like Iran in their border. Unfortunately I am not positive. Any way life is still beautiful.

Thanks for this information, and thanks for your attendance of this demonstration. I am with you 100%.

Other Comments by kkant

25. Comment #36167 by denoir on April 30, 2007 at 11:47 am

Druid & everen, thanks for your posts. My conclusions are based on opinion polls, election results and previous problems connected to secularism. I may be wrong, but the numbers look rather convincing.

Specifically:
The (arguably) islamist party in the last parliament elections won 363 seats of a total 550. That's 66%. (1)

63% of Turkish women cover their heads outside the home. (2)

The number of people that declare themselves politically as "islamists" is (sic!) 48.5% (3)

The last military coup was not so long ago - in 1997 to oust a fairly extreme popularly elected Islamist prime minister. According to (3) opinion polls have shown steadily increasing support for the islamist cause since then.


References:
(1)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_presidential_election%2C_2007#Composition_of_Turkish_Parliament
(2) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6122010.stm
(3) http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/pubPDFs/PolicyFocus67.pdf

Other Comments by denoir

26. Comment #36169 by Riley on April 30, 2007 at 12:04 pm

mrjonno wrote: No constitution or institute is any better than the people who work in it.

That's too simplistic. The constitutional process itself determines who works in it! Moreover, who we are is in large part determined by the institutions that train and prepare us to be the future workers and citizens inside the very institutions that train us. So which comes first, the chicken or the egg?

Also, more to my point, a constitutional democracy is supposed to represent the will of the majority (limited by constitutional "rights"), but in reality, deception, misinformation, and poor institutional structure in government can allow minority interests to be served by government without the majority being aware of it.

Laws that make transparency and accountability a requirement along with a structure of powers that can enforce it, along with cultural traditions that expect it, are all necessary parts of a healthy government system.

However, first there must be the right to organize and demonstrate against government and freely broadcast your complaints to all people who would listen. In this regard, it's inspiring to see the passion demonstrated by peaceful and freedom loving people in Turkey! I love it!

mrjonno wrote: The fact is most people are just indifferent

This is nieve and too cynical. Have you ever taken action yourself? It's hard to make a difference. Who do you trust? Who has the right answer to the right problems? How do you reach agreement?

People care ... but organizing and trusting are very difficult - especially when there exists a well funded minority of people actively dedicated to the spread of spin, distraction, and outright misinformation.

Other Comments by Riley

27. Comment #36175 by Riley on April 30, 2007 at 12:19 pm

Denoir, I read that BBC article about the 63% of women being "covered" outside of the home, the next paragraph is worth reading:

"According to information leaked from an opinion poll due out later this month, 63% of Turkish women now cover their heads outside the home.

However the majority of those wear a traditional, non-Islamic head covering. A tiny percentage choose the full cover of the chador and just 11% of respondents wear the turban - or religious headscarf - which is neatly pinned at the sides, leaving the face exposed.

Perhaps more interesting is that all the figures have fallen since the last survey on the same issue six years ago."

------

Other Comments by Riley

28. Comment #36189 by denoir on April 30, 2007 at 12:47 pm

Riley: Yes, I agree that the 63% number isn't very convincing as an argument by itself. However read the third reference which contains some much less ambiguous data.

Other Comments by denoir

29. Comment #36224 by Druid on April 30, 2007 at 2:26 pm

Dear Denoir,
You said, The (arguably) islamist party in the last parliament elections won 363 seats of a total 550. That's 66%.
This is just because of minimum limit to enter the parliament -10%. ALL of the muslim-nationalists were gathered together and voted for AKP while the secularist block was disintegrating. AKP gained 363 seats from parliament with 30% of total votes which, as I previously explained, contain the ones who trusted their claims about changing. 70% is not with them and the pools show that number of the ones who are not with them is increasing. If I am not mistaken, CHP took 19% of total votes and others are not in parliament because their votes are below 10%. This is the situation that most of the Turks would tell you if you ask them and I and everybody here agree with this analysis.
Head covering does not mean we are radical islamists. My grandmother covers her head, too but we were all at the demonstration on sunday to defend secularism.
The third referance you attached is interesting, though. I have read results of lots of surveys conducted regarding this issues but the number was never that high. I would like to examine it in detail.
All I wrote does not mean that everything is perfect here and that's why we were at Çaglayan Square on Sunday. All I want to say is that we are still here and we will not surrender.


Other Comments by Druid

30. Comment #36266 by Allan Greene on April 30, 2007 at 5:19 pm

04-30-2007
Monday

In 1850, Marx -- an atheist, as well as a revolutionary socialist, and proletarian democrat (not a bourgeois capitalist democrat) -- codified in a speech he gave to exiled supporters of the Communist League in England the phrase, "revolution in permanence," as the only way to insure, ironically, bourgeois democratic tasks of his day could be solved favorably. Marx argued that, again ironically, it would be necessarily to go beyond bourgeois private property-based democracy, and move over to proletarian communist democracy, and have the workers lead movements for democracy. He argued this would lead to a different kind of democracy from the bourgeois capitalist kind.

In 1906, Leon Trotsky in his 1906 book, Results and Prospects, argued this perspective for the Russian Revolution. He argued that Russia was a country of belated capitalist development but, ironically, the bourgeois class in Russia was so feeble that it could in no way, no shape, no form, lead a movement to resolve the classical bourgeois democratic tasks, and instead, it would be necessary for the workers' party to lead that movement, and, in its very dynamic, it would go beyond bourgeois capitalist democracy to communist workers' council-based democracy. Trotsky again used Marx's old phrase, "the permanent revolution," for his perspective.

In 1917, Trotsky joined Lenin's Bolshevik Party, seeing in Lenin's April Theses the codification of Lenin's intention to break from the older algebraic concept of an alliance of workers and peasants in which no specific class would be leadership, and move over to Lenin's new concept of a proletarian-led worker-peasant alliance, which would have to immediately go over to expropriate bourgeois capitalist factories, mines, mills, banks, corporations, and establish a workers' democracy of communist or socialist type based on elected councils of workers' delegates (soviets, to use the Russian word for council).

Trotsky saw the practice of Lenin's Bolsheviks in 1917 as embodying the concept of the permanent revolution.

In 1929, Trotsky fought against Stalin precisely over this issue of the permanent revolution yet again, saying that Stalin was reverting backwards to older two-stage theories of socialist revolution of the more pro-bourgeois Menshevik parties.

Turkey is a country of belated capitalist development. It's never completely resolved its democratic tasks. Nor, within a purely bourgeois private property context, could it ever do this.

One of these tasks is the strict and uncompromised separation of religion and government -- i.e., strict secularism.

So long as bourgeois private property in the means of production continues existing in Turkey, religious fundamentalist totalitarianism will continue existing as a threat to the masses of the Turkish people.

It will require a secular, atheistic, communist revolutionary workers' party based on the secular, atheistic, communist precepts of Marxism of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky and other secular, atheistic, communists before Turkey can both solve the old democratic tasks of the bourgeoisie who, in Turkey, are utterly incapable of consistently resolving them, and go over from bourgeois democracy to proletarian workers council-based democracy, a proletarian secular communist Turkey in the sense in which Lenin and Trotsky originally intended, and which Stalin and his gangsters betrayed.

May that day come soon.

Best,
Allan Greene

Other Comments by Allan Greene

31. Comment #36351 by evren on May 1, 2007 at 1:27 am

Dear Denoir,

As DRUID mentioned as well, there are many parties in Turkey. Some are right wing, some are middle right, some middle left, some communist but all islamist people voted only for 1 islamist party (maybe calling Islamist to everyone voting for AK party is wrong because some people chose to vote them because this was a recent party and they were bored of lies of other parties). As all other votes are divided and dimished it seems as if AK Party took 66% of all votes.


If you read all your refences again you will see that both on your ref 2 and 3 the results are more or less the same.

as Riley Commented (BBC Article):
(However the majority of those wear a traditional, non-Islamic head covering. A tiny percentage choose the full cover of the chador and just 11% of respondents wear the turban - or religious headscarf - which is neatly pinned at the sides, leaving the face exposed.)

on your 3rd ref it is stated that there is more data but that more data seems to be the same. (please see page 47) (11.4% woman wearing Turban and others wearing traditional scarfs or head covering.)

I believe numbers are not important we want no coup no sharia but 100% secular free Turkey.

Other Comments by evren

32. Comment #36362 by evren on May 1, 2007 at 1:49 am

Denoir wrote:
(According to (3) opinion polls have shown steadily increasing support for the islamist cause since then.)

Of course that is normal because there is this public opinion that Europe does not want us anymore. So support to join the EU has dropped from 73% to 54%. ( http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/pubPDFs/PolicyFocus67.pdf
)

On the other hand America is bombing our neighbour Iraq. So it is easier for Islamist parties to gain supporters just by saying that America is against Islam EU is against islam and they get supporter easily to create an Islam kingdom. Unfortunately most people believe in this when they watch what America is doing in Iraq. Well this is the result :D

Other Comments by evren

33. Comment #36609 by Allan Greene on May 1, 2007 at 6:15 pm

05-01-2007
Tuesday

Happy May Day!

I have been following the interesting points made by some of the posters here.

I am particularly interested in the posts by folks who either indicate they were in Turkey or have been in some of the recent secularist demonstrations in Turkey.

I think the capitalist world of U.S. imperialism, British imperialism, French imperialism, German imperialism, the European Union's imperialism, makes a false separation between "democracy" and "secularism." So do some atheists -- mistakenly, in my view. (I am atheist, I wish to state here.)

The reason I posted the other day on Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, and the early communists before Stalin, is, they combined the fight against poverty, illiteracy, misery, exploitation, oppression, with secularism and atheism. And they did not oppose democracy; what they opposed was, capitalist democracy. They supported a democracy of elected workers' councils, called soviets, in 1917 and 1918.

The Stalinist bureaucratic dictatorship that came to power in 1923-1924 in Russia was only enabled to come to power because the proletarian elected councils that took power in Russia in 1917-1918 led by Lenin's and Trotsky's Bolshevik Party tried to preach the extension of the socialist takeover by the workers in Russia to the rest of the world, but that takeover did not succeed in the countries of advanced capitalist development. If it had succeeded, however, it's probable that the Stalinist bureaucracy could not have taken over in Russia from the elected workers' councils there and instead of a Stalinist dictatorship, Russia in collaboration with one or more workers' societies in one or more of the technologically and industrially advanced portions of the world might have been able to go forward together developing and modernizing in a secular, atheistic way that, unlike under Stalin, might have been peaceable, relatively nonviolent, without bloodshed, and relatively democratic, but in a socialist and communist sense, not a capitalist sense.

That perspective of the world revolution was Trotsky's and Lenin's and the earlier Bolsheviks' perspective, but the Stalinists did away with it.

To me, Turkey is a country that achieved national liberation with the secularist leader, Kemal Ataturk, but that national liberation never entirely broke internally the hold of the religious fundamentalists inside Turkey.

Additionally, internationally, Turkey is facing the same problems that beset the world and are caused fundamentally by the international economic crisis of world capitalism, an economic crisis that particularly keeps countries of belated capitalist development enslaved to much of the old "pre-bourgeois crap." The irony is, however, the bourgeois classes of countries of belated capitalist development do not possess the social and economic and political strength to resist forever the assault of the right-wing forces (including religious fundamentalism) in the world, including in countries like Turkey.

But the Turkish impoverished masses require the smashing of their own poverty, exploitation, oppression, and if they think, or some of them think -- mistakenly -- that some of the religious fundamentalists can solve these problems, they may opt for the religious fundamentalists. Or else, out of complete despair, they may opt for the religious fundamentalists if the militant Turkish secular Left abdicates its responsibility to fight the exploitation and oppression of the Turkish impoverished working, peasant, and poor masses.

Karl Marx said this about religion. He said: "Religion is the heart of a heartless world, the soul of soul-less conditions, the cry of the oppressed, the opiate of the people." He said: "The demand to give up illusions about our condition is the demand to abolish a condition requiring illusions."

Leon Trotsky in his 1906 book, Results and Prospects, first talked about what is necessary in the modern world in countries of belated capitalist development when he addressed what he perceived to be the tasks of the Russian Revolution. In 1917, Lenin's Bolshevik Party encouraged by Lenin's April Theses changed from its semi-social-democratic to its proto-Trotskyist perspective recognizing that the only way, ironically, of gaining a democracy in Russia was to gain a proletarian communist democracy based on elected councils of workers, farm laborers, peasants, the poor, the masses, led by a revolutionary, atheistic, socialist party, because the petit-bourgeois or middle classes of Russia and the bourgeois classes of Russia were entirely incapable of breaking decisively with the imperialist capitalist powers of the world who kept Russia enslaved to English and French and Belgian and, later, American, capitalism's interests.

By the same token, I am inclined to think the only way Turkey will go forward to become a genuinely egalitarian and secular republic is on proletarian communist lines of the perspective of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, Rosa Luxemburg, the perspective of what both Marx and Trotsky called, the permanent revolution or revolution in permanence. The Turkish middle classes and bourgeois classes are not capable of permanently resisting the right-wing religious fundamentalists in Turkey, and the impoverished and exploited and poor and oppressed masses will continue looking for some way out of their exploitation and oppression whether the secular Left provides them with a way or not.

Additionally, those middle classes in Turkey who will feel besieged by international imperialist capitalism will also eventually come, in some of their numbers, to be attracted to the anti-secular right-wing religious fundamentalists.

In 1929-1933, Leon Trotsky suggested that the only way to split the petit-bourgeois (middle class) masses away form allegiance to the irrationalist forces of Hitler and the Nazis in Germany was by the secular German proletarian Left presenting a hardcore revolutionary socialist program, while simultaneously presenting the perspective of a military united front of the left and workers' parties and unions and workers' organizations in the streeets against the Nazi stormtroopers. That is the proper way to fight the religious fundamentalist right in Turkey as well.

But if there is any possibility within that perspective of addressing the rank and file of the soldier masses who are themselves in favor of secularism, that, too, would have to be talked about among militant fighters on the Left who really want to smash the religious fundamentalists and want a truly secular Turkey, but realize they cannot get it by ignoring the poverty, misery, exploitation and oppression of the working, and exploited masses of Turkey's working people. The soldier masses may, possibly, be winnable to the perspective of elected soldiers' councils as the workers might be winnable at some point to the perspective of elected workers' councils, and the peasant masses to the perspective of elected peasant councils.

Additionally, there has to be in this kind of perspective an addressing of the right of national self-determination for the oppressed nationalities inside Turkey, particularly the nationally oppressed Kurdish people, as the Bolsheviks addressed the issue of the rights of national self-determination of the varied and sundry oppressed nationalities in the former Russian empire of the czars, which Lenin called a prisonhouse of peoples.

This perspective would not, of course, be loved by European Union capitalist imperialism, but it is not the interests of the Turkish secular Left to subordinate its desires and aims and goals to what rapacious and predatory European Union capitalist imperialism, or its mega-imperialist giant across the Atlantic Ocean, U.S. imperialism, want. The secular Turkish revolutionary Left should put forth the perspective of the permanent revolution for Turkey, and part of that is the extension of the proletarian socialist revolution in Turkey to the heart and belly of the capitalist and imperialist beast, Europe, including into Germany, France, England, and particularly across the ocean into America. The slogan that must replace the slogan of the capitalist European Union is the Socialist United States of Europe, and here in America, the slogan of the Socialist United States of North, Central, and South America. The Turkish people could see their proletarian secular Left revolution as being an opening shot in the forging of a Socialist Federation of the Near East in the context of which every rotten and oppressive and exploitative regime in the Near East could be smashed, and replaced by regimes of elected councils of workers, peasants, farm laborers, soldiers, sailors, with women's liberation through socialist revolution, gay liberation through socialist revolution, and the rights of national self-determination for every single oppressed nationality in the Near East -- Kurds, Palestinians, and the Hebrew speaking people as well.

That is the only perspective that, I think, has a hope for gaining both a secular democratic Turkey (albeit on foundations of proletarian socialist democracy, the foundations of elected and armed workers' councils as the foundations of a proletarian dictatorship which, however, would be a democracy for the exploited and oppressed classes of Turkish society) and a secular and democratic Near East (again albeit a proletarian communist democracy, as a proletarian dictatorship of armed and elected workers councils and other councils as its basis throughout the Near East).

This would not happen, however, unless the perspective included international extension of the proletarian revolution to the countries of advanced capitalist development, particularly into Europe and across the Atlantic into North America.

Best for now,
Allan Greene

Other Comments by Allan Greene

34. Comment #36667 by Isik on May 2, 2007 at 1:29 am

Thanks for all comments. As an insider, I have to make a few points clear. In Turkey, there are three kinds of Turkish people;
1. One is secular. They do not accpet anybody but just secular. They are not atheist either. They belong to a marijinal group that they took the control of Turkey, for years, exploited TUrkish sources, Bank frauds, drugs, selling guns to PKK etc. This group is the one who made a stir very lately upon the fear that they will no longer in charge and no more benefits, stealing, exploting, taking advantage of their positions they are holding in Govermental foundations and offices. The religion is just their justication same as Bush.

2. The people who are not religious deeply maybe they pray only once and they are trying to survive in thier own struggle. They are/were not aware of this marijinal group- the first group- but now thanks to latest events, they know very well that who are the bad guys in this movie.

3. The third group is the one who are quite aware of what is going on and share/express their opinions with gropu two through TV, newspapers, magazines, radios, etc. This group loves their country so much as well and they try to stop their country from being exploited.

In the light of these grouping, you can figure out what's going on. AKP took the vote of group 2 and three - 34%- now new selection will be owerwhelmingly won by AKP as well. Do not mislead yourself with huge rally pictures. This is not real picture, but sadly to say they want to make it look as if it is real. The majority of people will not let some people exploit their country again. They will not let abuse the religion in both ways. Let's see! Wait and see.

Other Comments by Isik

35. Comment #36673 by Bonzai on May 2, 2007 at 1:42 am

It doesn't look good according to Taner-Edis. He said secularism is dying in Turkey.

http://richarddawkins.net/article,962,Science-and-Religion-in-Islam,Taner-Edis-Point-of-Inquiry

Other Comments by Bonzai

36. Comment #36981 by evren on May 3, 2007 at 2:45 am

Thanks Isik, you have managed to categorize 70 million people in 3 groups. Well done but I totally disagree.

1- How come secularism is related to guns, drugs and Turkish resources. :D. I would be pleased if you tell me what you understand from secularism.

Please also read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism

Well Bonzai, it is believed by at least one person that secularism is something that sucks Turkish resources. So I hope it is better be dead :D.

On the otherhand Turkey will hopefully be always free and secular no one will ever be able to change this...

Other Comments by evren

37. Comment #37184 by Bonzai on May 3, 2007 at 3:38 pm

evren,

I think Isik may have a point. It is not so much about "secularism" as a philosophy, but in the particular way that many ME countries are secularized, there is a historical context. "Secularism" in the ME is often tied up with fascist movements and military dictatorship. Assad of Syria, Mubarak of Egypt and Saddam are (were) some representatives of the kind of secular rulers the Arab world produces. (Saddam only became more "religious" when the U.S. turned against him after the invasion of Kuwait. It was a calculated move for political expediency)

Other Comments by Bonzai

38. Comment #37312 by evren on May 4, 2007 at 4:21 am

Bonzai,

I see your point but what is the solution to the below question then?

1-we are in the 3 rd millenium. We talk about freedom of thought freedom of speech etc...
2-then we have secularism and democracy
3-if there is a country with 30 % of population supporting Sharia (30% of people does not support Sharia in Turkey this is just an example). If a party is elected by these people supporting Sharia. Shall that country become like Iran?

Other Comments by evren

39. Comment #37565 by Bonzai on May 5, 2007 at 1:30 am

I didn't say I have a solution. I am just pointing out the very unenviable situation in the ME. Of course secular democracy is the desirable outcome, I just don't know if I can be optimistic about it. I hope that will happen.

Other Comments by Bonzai