Turkish referendum; good for Ireland too?

seamus

oscarBravo wrote: »

There's some weird logic in that sentence. It's almost as if the fact that future presidents will be beneficiaries of the power grab makes it not a power grab.

"It's not like he's immortal. When Erdogan dies, someone else will have the powers that are now being enacted."

That's how I read his post.

josip

seamus wrote: »

"It's not like he's immortal. When Erdogan dies, someone else will have the powers that are now being enacted."

That's how I read his post.

Can Erdogan nominate his successor according to the new powers or is there an open election?

recedite

josip wrote: »

Can Erdogan nominate his successor according to the new powers or is there an open election?

Of course not. He can stand for election as president in 2019. If he wins that election, he'll be the first president under the new system in which the president has executive control of the government. If not he'll be remembered as the guy who instigated a new and better system, but never got to use the new powers.
If he wins, he'll have a five year term, with a max of two consecutive terms.

In short, he's as much a dictator as George Washington was.

josip

recedite wrote: »

Of course not. He can stand for election as president in 2019. If he wins that election, he'll be the first president under the new system in which the president has executive control of the government. If not he'll be remembered as the guy who instigated a new and better system, but never got to use the new powers.
If he wins, he'll have a five year term, with a max of two consecutive terms.

In short, he's as much a dictator as George Washington was.

Has his curtailment of the media been misrepresented then?

recedite

He did shut down some opposition newspapers alright, and he threatened to unleash a horde of migrants into Greece if he didn't get a shedload of money from the EU, and he used the power of the state to encourage a Yes vote (which was also normal here up until the McKenna case in 1995).
But he did all that under the existing parliamentary system.
This thread is really about whether the new presidential system will be better than the old system. I'm not particularly a huge fan of Erdogan himself.

DeadHand

recedite wrote: »

Of course not. He can stand for election as president in 2019. If he wins that election, he'll be the first president under the new system in which the president has executive control of the government. If not he'll be remembered as the guy who instigated a new and better system, but never got to use the new powers.
If he wins, he'll have a five year term, with a max of two consecutive terms.

In short, he's as much a dictator as George Washington was.

He's 68 years old- he's designed it to make himself ruler for life.

You can be sure he'll win as many terms as he is alive and able for- he is popular but, more importantly, he's not above cheating and/or eliminating the opposition. He's not to type to lose graciously and retire. He's also not to type to leave without anointing a preferred successor.

Erdogen in charge isn't good but is hardly a cataclysm- he's a pragmatic leader first and foremost, he is unlikely to start any wars or transform Turkey into Saudi Arabia. He has Islamist roots and Islamist leanings but my reading is he is more interested in his own empowerment than the total triumph of Islam over secular Turkey. His Islamism may be more a means of appealing to the conservative voters on which he relies than a primary driving force.

Where these new powers are dangerous is not so much in how Erdogen uses them but in who may follow him. There isn't much stopping his successor (or even an elderly Erdogen) doing some Putin style voodoo to extend his reign indefinitely now that the base powers have been established. Turkey simply isn't America- the checks and balances will not be there. The media is weak, the tradition of anti-authoritism and intellectual dissent isn't as strong.

Where the ultimate danger for Turkey and the world lies is in if the next guy is a True Beliver: a hardcore Islamist. An Islamic Republic of Turkey, on top of making life miserable for its women, sexual minorities and what few religious minorities remain there, could represent a massive threat to Europe as an export base and conduit of Islamism and Islamist violence a la Saudi Arabia (which it already is to a smaller, less deliberate extent). It could do much to complete the Islamist victory in the ME and further facilitate its incursion into Europe.

This incursion is already well under way, of course, but a radically Islamified Turkey controlling the gates and wielding massive geopolitical clout could serve to strengthen it massively, making Europe's future a whole lot bleaker than it already is.

recedite

DeadHand wrote: »

he's designed it to make himself ruler for life.

5 year term of office. Nothing unusual in that.
If you want to contradict me, show some evidence.

DeadHand

recedite wrote: »

5 year term of office. Nothing unusual in that.
If you want to contradict me, show some evidence.

With two consecutive terms of five years each that he'll win even if he loses.

That's 15 years- I don't imagine he plans to live far beyond 83. Even if by some miracle he's still formiddable at that point there won't be much to stop him gerrymandering the thing again.

Ruler for Life, see?

josip

Given that it's impossible to provide evidence of future events, perhaps it would be insightful to identify countries that already have a similar electoral system to what Turkey will now have with an equivalent charismatic leader? Zimbabwe?

recedite

DeadHand wrote: »

With two consecutive terms of five years each that he'll win even if he loses.

You'll have to explain that. If you allege he wins by vote rigging, then say how that will be made any easier under the new system?

recedite

josip wrote: »

Given that it's impossible to provide evidence of future events, perhaps it would be insightful to identify countries that already have a similar electoral system to what Turkey will now have...

A similar US constitutional system produced Trump, but also Obama. I don't see how the charisma, or otherwise, of the current leader matters to the election of any future leaders.
If you mean the electoral system as opposed to the new constitutional arrangement, I don't think that is changing?

DeadHand

recedite wrote: »

You'll have to explain that. If you allege he wins by vote rigging, then say how that will be made any easier under the new system?

Yes, he rigs elections- by media censorship and simply imprisoning the opposition. Direct electoral fraud is more difficult to prove but highly probable- even leaving it aside he clearly cheats.

The changes won't make cheating any easier, it will be as easy as ever. He just won't have to do it as often and he will enjoy greater powers after his inevitable "victories".

Erdogen is undeniably popular and effective. But he is no democrat- he uses democracy as a means to his own ends. Therefore, these changes were not brought about to benefit Turkey they were brought about to benefit Recep Erdogen.

DeadHand

recedite wrote: »

A similar US constitutional system produced Trump, but also Obama. I don't see how the charisma, or otherwise, of the current leader matters to the election of any future leaders.
If you mean the electoral system as opposed to the new constitutional arrangement, I don't think that is changing?

Turkey is not the USA.

The terms are longer and there are more of them. This creates more opportunity for a single figure to dominate the political landscape more utterly and for longer- dictatorship lite and a stepping stone toward full dictatorship. American checks and balances such as a strong, independent judiciary, Congress and media aren't in place to the same extent.

Culturally, Turkey is far more likely to produce and succumb to a dictator- more worryingly a religiously driven dictator. This is more likely the first step on the road to an Iranian style theocracy than an American style democracy.

They already have a ready made half-dictator who will capitalise on these changes he devised for his own advancement and will have many other potentially far more dangerous men waiting to do so in the future.

DeadHand

Having said all that, I don't think secular authoritism is the worst option for a Muslim country- not when one looks at what the likes of Iraq, Libya and Syria have become. What Egypt was on the road to before it was rescued by its military.

Erdogen does not strike me as a religious fanatic- despite his Islamist sympathies. As a strongman, he is a cynical, often violent thug but nowhere near Saddam or Assad levels of brutality. He seems pragmatic and logical- more Putin than Kim. Of course, I could be wrong and he may roll out the crazy now he's strengthened his position but I doubt it somehow.

Though it's terrible for a great many good people within Turkey itself and sets democracy backward a few generations in that country- an Erdogen dictatorship or semi-dictatorship is not something the broader world needs to be overly fearful about. It could be worse.

What should be feared is who may come after, what may seize these powers after Erdogen is gone. It could be a far more fundamentalist and/or expansionist figure or movement. Turkey is a powerful beast in a crucial position- with the wrong people in charge it could wrought great evil. Après moi, le deluge type thing.

Victor

recedite wrote: »

5 year term of office. Nothing unusual in that.
If you want to contradict me, show some evidence.

No, it's his existing time in government, plus as many terms as he can get in future if he does a Putin-Medvedev style swap.

recedite

DeadHand wrote: »

Having said all that, I don't think secular authoritism is the worst option for a Muslim country- not when one looks at what the likes of Iraq, Libya and Syria have become. What Egypt was on the road to before it was rescued by its military.

Erdogen does not strike me as a religious fanatic- despite his Islamist sympathies. As a strongman, he is a cynical, often violent thug but nowhere near Saddam or Assad levels of brutality. He seems pragmatic and logical- more Putin than Kim.

I agree with all that. He headed up an islamist party in his early days as mayor of Istanbul, but he seems to have largely dropped all that, which implies that it was just a political expediency or vote-grabber for him at the time. The great thing about a populist is that they do whatever is popular in order to gain power, which in essence is democracy. All politicians want power. He's probably not much different to the alternatives; an army junta or a Gulen administration.

Victor wrote: »

No, it's his existing time in government, plus as many terms as he can get in future if he does a Putin-Medvedev style swap.

Russia has a PM and a president which enables that trick, whereas Turkey has just voted to abolish the office of the PM. Its a switch from UK style system to a US style one.
Not a switch to the Russian style, which is not an ideal constitutional system.

Chips Lovell

I think the main concern is that Erdogan has created a very powerful executive presidency without the checks and balances employed by the US and France.

But under the new constitution, unlike the Assembl?e Nationale and Congress, the Turkish parliament will not control the details of spending or have a say over presidential appointments. Neither will it be able to subject the cabinet to questions, except in writing.

And that's just the start of it. Power could be concentrated in the hands of one man for a very long time, which is never healthy. He's already been in power since 2003 and now could potentially be in office until 2029. George Bush was in power back in 2003. Imagine him being able to hang on for that long?

Despite holding an executive presidency, the constitution permits him to retain control over his party, allowing him to handpick candidates. Again, no US president has ever been able to stack Congress with his own people. It also gives him significant control over appointments of judges and prosecutors.

Long story short, if you concentrate such power in the hands of one person, they need to be accountable to a strong parliament and judiciary, something which this constitution lacks.

If anyone has any doubts about what's going on here, go read the Venice Commission's detailed assessment of the constitutional changes:

...the substance of the proposed constitutional amendments represents a dangerous step backwards in the constitutional democratic tradition of Turkey. The Venice Commission wishes to stress the dangers of degeneration of the proposed system towards an authoritarian and personal regime. In addition, the timing is most unfortunate and is itself cause of concern: the current state of emergency does not provide for the due democratic setting for a constitutional referendum.

This isn't like the US or French systems. It's more like Russia.

recedite

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

And that's just the start of it. Power could be concentrated in the hands of one man for a very long time, which is never healthy. He's already been in power since 2003 and now could potentially be in office until 2029.

That's a once off situation though, because he'll only be allowed 2 terms as President.
The concerns spelled out in the Venice document regarding the presidents ability to appoint ministers are overblown IMO.
The word "ministers" in English can imply the parliament, but as the Turks say

Since a strict separation of powers is envisaged in the government system brought, it is accepted that, in that case deputies are appointed as Vice-presidents or ministers, their membership of the Assembly will terminate.

So I think these "ministers" would be more akin to the secretaries of the state departments which the US President normally appoints in the first weeks and months of the administration. So not a problem, and still a full separation of powers between the Presidents administration (the executive arm of the state) and the national parliament (the legislature)