View Full Version : Hundred Thousands March in Turkey
LeftEyeNine
04-14-2007, 15:10
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6554851.stm
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070414/ap_on_re_mi_ea/turkey_march
Ah yes, one of the biggest, if not the top, totally democratic from the start to the end gatherings of Republic history of Turkey took place today.
There has been an overwhelming pressure and reaction against Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who started his governing political career as a puppet of USA, getting out of the jail after the visit of the "skillful" Turkey ambassador of USA of the time, Eric Edelman. You heard about "moderate Islamists", didn't you? Yeah it's lovely when extremists come to mind but it was just a label how we were imposed Erdogan and his gang as a government. I remember how Washington Post and several other papers were celebrating the welcome of this "moderate Islamist" government.
With his political party's solid existence in the parliament, now this puppet is looking to take over the chair of presidency in the upcoming president elections, which will eventually mean his government will be able to pass any laws they wish to. They clearly are not moderates or something. In politics, in Turkey, you can't be moderate, you are either using such camoufalge for your radical political intentions or not. This country has never seen the else way, if there ever is.
Mainly because of that perception of threat against a secular Turkey recently, and also under anti-imperalist, Kemalist guidance as well, hundred thousands gathered in Ankara. Friends who were able to join the march said that the gathering was not a cartel of any political party or something. All such banners distracting the essence of the march were taken down.
I have never seen Turkish people so bold and determined lately, using their democratic rights in a democratic way no worse than a Western society.
14th of April has been the day again when Turkish society proved out their stand against radical Islamists and their "moderate make-up" artists.
We just don't want this guy sitting by the knees of a Ladin supporter, former-USA tool mullah used against the Soviets in Afghanistan, to reach where Ataturk had been once.
https://img175.imageshack.us/img175/4605/recoptr3.jpg
Photos from the march here (http://www.ntvmsnbc.com/modules/gallery/070414miting/default.htm).
https://img138.imageshack.us/img138/8138/miting2bl7.jpg
This is not a propaganda. I'm just amazed how my people learned to react with a loud voice, totally democratically, after such a long anesthesia, striving to safeguard Atatürk's heritage.
doc_bean
04-14-2007, 15:19
Just out of curiostiy, does the army still have the power and obligation to protect the state against Islamic take overs ?
My knowledge of Turkish history is quite bad, but I seem to remember that there have been a couple of attempts to found an Ismist state which were always countered by the military, but that the military has lost some power recently, mostly because of the EU who doesn't like the idea of military oversight of the government.
LeftEyeNine
04-14-2007, 16:25
Just out of curiostiy, does the army still have the power and obligation to protect the state against Islamic take overs ?
My knowledge of Turkish history is quite bad, but I seem to remember that there have been a couple of attempts to found an Ismist state which were always countered by the military, but that the military has lost some power recently, mostly because of the EU who doesn't like the idea of military oversight of the government.
Army is the protector of the Republic of Turkey, as it is the same for any other army, for any other country. And the army is still fortunately very sensitive against radical Islamist movements.
There have been a couple of military coups. The one in 1960 was made against a "moderate Islamic" government who were daring enough to replace the high cadre of the army in 1954. In 1981, the whole country was a fight yard for the Leftist and Rightist extremists, casualties were as frequent as it is now in Iraq. So army took over the charge again.
However in 1997, the Islamic movements were very frequent again by the courage of the government, which was a coalition of Necmettin Erbakan's Refah Partisi (Islamic) and Tansu Çiller's DYP (middle right). Erbakan was by far the most daring Islamist among all other politicians in Turkey's history. The one whom hundred thousands opposed today for his election as a president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan was a subordinate of him as well. We can say Erbakan brought him up. However they fell in dispute afterwards. (Though their ideals still are the same and stand)
Following the joining of Iran ambassador a gathering named "Jerusalem Night" organized in a town named Sincan (which was obviously an Islamic gathering favoring Palestine) and demonstration of Hizbullah posters in that night, some tanks that were returning from an operation practice, drove through the roads of that city on 28 Şubat 1997. After that date, the government was shaken, Erbakan was taken down and a new government was formed. Something they call a "post-modern coup", that was.
Briefly, Turkish army is very sensitive against the Islamic movements. They dismiss a number of soldiers every year, who are generally spotted as Islamists to leak into the army.
doc_bean
04-14-2007, 17:25
It seems like a somewhat stable system, though it also seems to be almost inevitable that if the system continues for long enough an islamist will eventually join the group of generals.
Why is it that Turkey still has so many problems with islamists ? Is it simply Islam, or religion itself ? Like (evangelist ?) christians keep influencing US politics ? Even if the followers are a minority they are simply far more politcally engaged than the majority ?
Or is there truelly a desire among the Turks to form a state based on Islamic law ? I hesitate to use the term sharia because that is afaik a rather extreme interpretation.
DemonArchangel
04-14-2007, 17:41
Well, I sort of doubt the majority of Turks want a state based upon Islamic law. For every Turk that wants a state based upon Islamic law, there's at least one that wants a secular state. If it ever came down to it, I think the tension in Turkey would get down to some rather severe violence.
But it won't get to that level, right?
LeftEyeNine
04-14-2007, 17:45
It seems like a somewhat stable system, though it also seems to be almost inevitable that if the system continues for long enough an islamist will eventually join the group of generals.
Why is it that Turkey still has so many problems with islamists ? Is it simply Islam, or religion itself ? Like (evangelist ?) christians keep influencing US politics ? Even if the followers are a minority they are simply far more politcally engaged than the majority ?
Or is there truelly a desire among the Turks to form a state based on Islamic law ? I hesitate to use the term sharia because that is afaik a rather extreme interpretation.
Well, something we are not hoping for indeed. Though the USA supported moderate islamist Fethullah Gülen's community continuously tries to leak in, they get spotted somehow.
Well the background of the neverending Islamic threat upon the system has two factors behind, me thinks:
1- Turkey, although built from the scratch, is built and relies on an Shariyah-based state's society, Ottoman folk, that is. Though people evolve by time, and things are less fanatic with the folk, we are a young country yet. The self-awareness of the society about the benefits from secularism will take more time to settle. However, worldwide events such as, 9/11 and the anti-Muslim hate evolved afterwards is a countering factor in this balance.
2- The neighboring Muslim countries (except for Azerbaijan) and Turkey always failed at dialogues, stretching towards dangerous tensions. So that, especially Iran was effectively "exporting Islamic regimé" through funding extremist groups like Hizbullah and such.
Louis VI the Fat
04-16-2007, 19:34
This is encouraging news, LEN. The secular Kemalist republic is well worth putting up a fight for.
Brilliant. :balloon2: :turkey: :balloon2:
This is encouraging news, LEN. The secular Kemalist republic is well worth putting up a fight for.
Brilliant. :balloon2: :turkey: :balloon2:
Seconded.
Was Kemal not an ally of the US himself ?
Good news.
Lets us hope first that the army will remain to it's place and second that the movement will grow.
Secularism is something worth fighting for, mostly in a muslim country.
Adrian II
04-17-2007, 17:53
Good show. Let's have some more demonstrations of the Turkish spirit of freedom.
I am reading Taner Akçam's history of the Armenian genocide right now, which has been translated into Dutch. Excellent book. Akçam should be professor in Turkey, not in Minnesota.
There has been an overwhelming pressure and reaction against Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who started his governing political career as a puppet of USA, getting out of the jail after the visit of the "skillful" Turkey ambassador of USA of the time, Eric Edelman.
I wont profess to know Turkish history or precedent, but peaceful demonstrations and rallies are a good thing. For me, any movement away from the U.S. by Turkey is a welcomed positive outcome. The less we have our fingers in everyone elses business, the better for us in the long run.
Indeed, erdogan was portrayed here in the U.S. as a staunch US ally, but more and more its apparant to the voting public here in the states that populations dont always hold the view of thier elected leaders.
LeftEyeNine
04-17-2007, 19:13
Was Kemal not an ally of the US himself ?
The sympathy was due to that only Wilson Principles were recognizing the Turkish existence by that time (though it was defending every other minorities and group's distinctively as well).
Although the Independence War may also be examined as a piece of armed anti-imperialist struggle, Mustafa Kemal and his comrades were absolutely not friendly against SSSR and communism.
Briefly, ally is a harder word to pronounce for Mustafa Kemal and his comrades' view towards USA - it was all of a sympathy emerged from Wilson Principles.
I am reading Taner Akçam's history of the Armenian genocide right now, which has been translated into Dutch. Excellent book. Akçam should be professor in Turkey, not in Minnesota.
One thing I can never understand here in the Org. "If it is about Turkey, bring up EU or Armenian Issue" :no:
1- So what, Adrian II ?
or,
1- I'd like to inform you that Taner Akçam refused to join a debate on a Swedish (IIRC) TV Channel without giving any reliable reasons which Mustafa Perinçek would participate as well.
Mustafa Perinçek is one of the leading academicians on the refusal side of Armenian Genocide, who has books on it, joining and organizing seminars panels about the issue. I'd recommend him as an alternative read as well if available to you.
However, in general, I'd be more pleased with improving the understanding that every debate concerning Turkey should not be undermined with EU or Armenian Issue every time.
LeftEyeNine
04-17-2007, 19:52
The less we have our fingers in everyone elses business, the better for us in the long run.
That was simple, wise and kind. Thanks. :bow:
Adrian II
04-17-2007, 20:09
Mustafa Perinçek is one of the leading academicians (associate professor) on the refusal side of Armenian Genocide, who has books on it, joining and organizing seminars panels about the issue. I'd recommend him as an alternative read as well if available to you.I can't seem to find a Mustafa Perinçek on Google, not a single one. Same in the Dutch national library system. You are not confusing him with Doğu Perinçek, the ex-Maoist politician who converted to Turkish nationalism and militarism?
At what university does Mustafa Perinçek teach?
LeftEyeNine
04-17-2007, 20:55
Check your PMs please, AdrianII :bow:
Louis VI the Fat
04-18-2007, 00:16
Just to thicken teh plot, my google does give a hit when I search for "Mustafa Perinçek" "atom bombasi" (http://www.google.fr/search?hl=fr&q=%22Mustafa+Perin%C3%A7ek%22+%22atom+bombasi%22&btnG=Rechercher&meta=)
~;)
LeftEyeNine
04-29-2007, 16:40
Millions march in Turkey today, for the same cause as April 14 march.
BBC News frontpage headline (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6604643.stm).
The Wizard
04-29-2007, 23:14
I'd hazard to say that Mustafa Kemal was pretty extreme himself, as far as religious matters are concerned. Certainly, the man's legacy as far as secularism, whether it accurately represents his own proper views on the matter, is quite clearly vitriollically anti-clerical and anti-religious in its nature. I find that just as despicable as seeing some Salafist junta come into power in Turkey and forcing their particular minority view of Islam on the general populace.
Kralizec
04-29-2007, 23:18
"islamist"
"minority"
How did these guys get a majority of seats in the parliament?
Cataphract_Of_The_City
04-30-2007, 00:07
According to the 1982 Turkish constitution a party needs over 10% of the total votes to enter parliament. AP got around 34% but they have an absolute majority in the parliament.
LeftEyeNine
04-30-2007, 02:52
"islamist"
"minority"
How did these guys get a majority of seats in the parliament?
- Being a toolset of Great Middle East Project of USA
- Representing a "moderate Islam" face as an American tool to play with a country's internal affairs
- Total failure of all political parties in the recent years, yielding no new and promising face for the future
= Absolute majority in the parliament
- Being a toolset of Great Middle East Project of USA
- Representing a "moderate Islam" face as an American tool to play with a country's internal affairs
- Total failure of all political parties in the recent years, yielding no new and promising face for the future
= Absolute majority in the parliament
Perhaps I am reading your post incorrectly but it reads as if you believe the current government is a tool of america?
If that is correct, how is it that america has such a powerful influence in Turkey? It was my understanding that Turkey was a working democracy, so I dont see how america can be held to account for the short comings of an elected government.
Seems far to convient to blame someone else for the problems, additionally I find it rather amazing the vast influence that the US is able to impose on such a vast amount of countries worldwide.
I dont know lefteyenine, seems to convient to me to blame the US for an internal issue.
Perhaps I am reading your post incorrectly but it reads as if you believe the current government is a tool of america?
It is widely believed in Turkey that USA made AKP(the islamist party) win the elections.
I disagree and see this only as a conspiracy theory.
For years Turkish people have been brainwashed by Islamic cults and similar institutions. Some parents send their children, before they can even read and write, to imams for teaching them Kuran. This is the reason why AKP got so many votes. With such a population, I find it absurd that people are blaming USA for the success of AKP.
USA just uses whoever comes into power.
USA just uses whoever comes into power.
On that I wont dispute, my government uses all and any leverages it has to influence decisions of other governments. I recall before the Iraq invasion a 6billion aid/incentive package for turkey if they allowed us to invade though thier soil, they said no.
While i dont try to minimalize the impact of US influence, I dont think the U.S. has quite the vast influence in the operations of foriegn governments that a lot of people believe.
If I am mistaken, then its a remarkable achievement for my government and something I would be very proud of. To somehow be able to weild that much influence abroad is indeed very powerful.
On a personal level I find it hard to accept the ease in which some transfer blame so readily to the U.S. for thier own countries woes. I wont proclaim that the U.S. is a complete innoncent, but at some point the peoples of said countries have to take responsibility for thier chosen leaders.
Nothing would give me greater pleasure then to have a Turkish government who was less cooperative with the u.s as a whole, and more dedicated to its own ambitions. Turkey has a very important decade ahead of it.
Vladimir
04-30-2007, 14:58
On that I wont dispute, my government uses all and any leverages it has to influence decisions of other governments. I recall before the Iraq invasion a 6billion aid/incentive package for turkey if they allowed us to invade though thier soil, they said no.
Actually they said "Sure, why not?" then "Well, it's not enough." then finally "Yankee go home!" I suppose we need better puppets in Asia Minor. :smash:
Actually they said "Sure, why not?" then "Well, it's not enough." then finally "Yankee go home!" I suppose we need better puppets in Asia Minor. :smash:
You mean, it isnt the U.S. 's fault they said no? :dizzy2:
Banquo's Ghost
04-30-2007, 16:27
I'm thoroughly confused. Why would it be in the US interest to have Turkey turn into another Islamic state?
Obviously, the Lizard Alliance is way too clever for me. :stunned:
Vladimir
04-30-2007, 17:06
You mean, it isnt the U.S. 's fault they said no? :dizzy2:
Of course it was! They weren't offered enough money.
Actually they said "Sure, why not?" then "Well, it's not enough." then finally "Yankee go home!" I suppose we need better puppets in Asia Minor. :smash:
No, this is not the way it happened. The government agreed to help USA, but the parliament said no. Mind you, both the government and majority of the parliament belonged to the same party(AKP). The prime minister could have forced his own parliamentaries to vote in favour of USA, but instead he let them vote free. He thought, that his own parliamentaries would vote yes even if he didn't force them and by not forcing them he won't lose too much popularity by his voters, who are Islamists and dont look kindly upon the invasion of an Islamic country. But a good number of AKP parliamentaries voted no. It was a big blunder on the part of the prime minister.
Kralizec
04-30-2007, 23:17
The prime minister could have forced his own parliamentaries to vote in favour of USA, but instead he let them vote free.
Is this power of his "behind the scenes", or does Erdogan weild formal power over the AKP MP's?
Either way it's pretty disturbing :no:
Is this power of his "behind the scenes", or does Erdogan weild formal power over the AKP MP's?
Either way it's pretty disturbing :no:
A political party can make a "group decision" about such votes, forcing all its members to give the same vote. This does not bind anyone legally of course, but if a member does not vote the way it is decided, the party can take disciplinary actions against him, maybe even expel him from the party.
I do not think anything is wrong with this. When you are a member of a party, you have to obey its decisions in certain critical issues. If your opinions differ, why stay a member?
Is this power of his "behind the scenes", or does Erdogan weild formal power over the AKP MP's?
In a parlimentary system there is voting and then there is free voting. He weilds formal power over all members of the party. He can order them around (they are his subordiantes). Including demand they vote a certain way on any parlimentary vote. Also as leader of the party he can step on any one who doesn't tow the line as it were. The absolute worst he could do is toss them from the party altogether. But for a contentious issue like letting the US invade Iraq from eastern Turkey, a free vote is the only option.
Either way it's pretty disturbing :no:
How so? It's bog standard for parlimentary governments. The exact same powers are weilded by Tony Blair, Stephen Harper, John Howard, Bertie Ahern, and Ehud Olmert.
Yesterday they said on the news that there would be riots resembling civil war in Turkey.
They said that a court nullified the last elections because the elected guy was too islamistic and now people protest/riot against that guy(why? if the court already settled the case, why do they riot?) and police fights them(they showed some policement with grenade launchers for gas or so).
Now I wonder whether and how much of that is right and why I think what they said doesn't really make sense?
If people protested against that guy and in favour of secularism, why was he elected?
Why do they riot after the court did exactly what they wanted?
havent seen a post from lefteyenine or komutan in a day or two, both list thier locations as turkey, hope all is well in your world fellas.
LeftEyeNine
05-02-2007, 13:31
Yesterday they said on the news that there would be riots resembling civil war in Turkey.
They said that a court nullified the last elections because the elected guy was too islamistic and now people protest/riot against that guy(why? if the court already settled the case, why do they riot?) and police fights them(they showed some policement with grenade launchers for gas or so.
Now I wonder whether and how much of that is right and why I think what they said doesn't really make sense?
If people protested against that guy and in favour of secularism, why was he elected?
Why do they riot after the court did exactly what they wanted?
Now seriously things are getting more clear for me about the foreign perspective on Turks. If you're all given those "snotty tissues" or "semenic airings" as sources of news, no wonder really.
or that Husar watched series of news and decided to craft them together into an abomination :laugh4: .
Well the elections that The Court of Constitution nullified was the 1st round of president elections made a few days ago, which had to extend to the 2nd round due to the lack of minimum votes required for an exact result.
The elected guy is the vice prime minister Abdullah Gül, who is also the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
This one, he is:
https://img156.imageshack.us/img156/8053/agsb2vv1.jpg
The November 28, 1995 dated paper's headline translates:
"Here is Refah 's (Islamic political party of which most of the current AKP were once members) real intention! Terrifying Confession
Vice President of Refah Party, Abdullah Gül says "It's the end of the Republic era". In an interview published in the British newspaper, The Guardian, the Refah party executive obviously challenged secularism and the republic"
Need to say more besides the photo I gave in the 1st page ? Ideals don't change. And power feeds them.
The riot is more than "a riot", which encouraged the Court of Constitution to decide (yesterday) in such manner as the nullification of the president elections. The beautifully monstrous marches organized in 14th and 29th of April were reactions against such threats over the top anministrative chairs of the country.
"The police using tear gas on the riot" belongs to the big disorder on 1st of May, Labour Day protests, not something related to the marches of 14th and 29th of April.
You sure have a bunch of idiots or "naaaasty" kids as journalists, Husar.
For years Turkish people have been brainwashed by Islamic cults and similar institutions. Some parents send their children, before they can even read and write, to imams for teaching them Kuran. This is the reason why AKP got so many votes. With such a population, I find it absurd that people are blaming USA for the success of AKP.
And, fellow, I doubt explaining AKP's total domination as "people send their kids to have them learn Kuran" and such is very accurate.
Here (http://www.belgenet.net/ayrinti.php?yil_id=14) are the election-by-election vote results throughout Turkey's lifetime up to now. You may also claim that people all grew their kids as both Grey Wolves and as social democratic individuals, according to previous results based on your view.
As the 90's and on indicate, the political despair of Turkish society can easily be spotted. Parties who were (/will) never be able to see such election results went through their golden ages by these years.
So following 9/11 and the operations for a better Middle East (Uncle Sam Warns You!), a moderate Islamic portray of AKP with an absolute power could play an ideal role on this "stage". Feeding from the series of political failures and cheer leader-ism of USA (Edelman visits Erdogan while in prison. Cuuute!), AKP beat votes hell out of other parties. CHP's tremendous result after so many years was another politically "down" result of Turkish society.
Don't make me mention about Fethullah Gülen, the leader of "Nurcu" community, the "lovely moderate Islamist" being guarded by FBI in USA ~:)
USA just loves to grow such mullahs up who eventually "hijack planes". :shame:
Edit: We're fine, Odin. Having gone through numerous crises which stirred up many countries, driving things into anarchy there, we are virtually immune to being "sick". :bow:
Thank you for asking, Odin :beam: . But everything is ok here.
What happened yesterday was not about the Islamist-Secularist conflict. 1st of may is Labour Day and every year extreme left groups use this as an opportunity for showing themselves. On some years there are really big riots. But the riots yesterday were pretty mild ones.
What happened yesterday was not about the Islamist-Secularist conflict. 1st of may is Labour Day and every year extreme left groups use this as an opportunity for showing themselves. On some years the riots are really big. But the riots yesterday were pretty mild ones.
Glad all is well with you and lefteyenine. Just to give you an idea of how things are portrayed in the U.S. (mostly mainstream media) very little attention was given to the fact that May Day is a tradtional day of protest, and that the protests were tied into the turkish election issues.
Obviously a turkish citizen would know more about the motivations of groups in thier country, but here in the U.S. the media has become highly politicized on just about every issue. Which inturn in this case creates a false impression of the scope of the election issue in turkey, if in fact may 1st is a tradtional protest day.
Its become very sexy in the U.S. media to point a finger at any potential political wrinkle of a percieved Bush admin allie (the current turkish admin is viewed as an ally here in the states).
LeftEyeNine
05-02-2007, 14:03
(the current turkish admin is viewed as an ally here in the states).
..summarizes what I'm babbling about, ain't it ? ~:)
Kralizec
05-02-2007, 17:43
A political party can make a "group decision" about such votes, forcing all its members to give the same vote. This does not bind anyone legally of course, but if a member does not vote the way it is decided, the party can take disciplinary actions against him, maybe even expel him from the party.
I do not think anything is wrong with this. When you are a member of a party, you have to obey its decisions in certain critical issues. If your opinions differ, why stay a member?
I agree parties should take measures, even scrap someone from the list who goes against the party line too much, but that decision shouldn't be up to someone who's taken post as a minister but to the leader of the party fraction in parliament or a party chairman without public office. If the actual government can force a majority to always endorse its policy a parliament becomes a rubber stamp charade.
"The police using tear gas on the riot" belongs to the big disorder on 1st of May, Labour Day protests, not something related to the marches of 14th and 29th of April.
Thought so, we have these here as well, this year I scored 5 policemen.:laugh4:
In the news they said the riots were related to the Gül election or so, pretty weird. Well, it was RTL, I was already asking myself why I still watch their news, I think it was because they were presented by Susanne Kronzucker (http://www.tvblogger.de/wp-content/Nachtjournal.jpg).:sweatdrop:
Turkey is a military dictatorship, not a democracy, judging from today's events. Then again democracy everywhere only applies as long as Islamists don't come to power, then democracy is thrown out and the guns brought it.
Adrian II
05-02-2007, 21:10
Susanne Kronzucker (http://www.tvblogger.de/wp-content/Nachtjournal.jpg).:sweatdrop:Dude, is she your mum or something? :dozey:
Dude, is she your mum or something? :dozey:
No, but she looks better than any dude or the woman who will tell me what the stars have planned for me tomorrow...
There's not much choice on Tv when you're bored around midnight and don't like sexual content or quizshows.:juggle2:
Adrian II
05-02-2007, 22:47
There's not much choice on Tv when you're bored around midnight and don't like sexual content or quizshows.:juggle2:Don't like sexual content? Sheesh, Banquo's Ghost was right: you do need to get out more. :inquisitive:
:laugh4:
Damm ! That woman is freaking hot. I should watch the news more often, on RTL.
LeftEyeNine
05-03-2007, 10:18
Turkey is a military dictatorship, not a democracy, judging from today's events. Then again democracy everywhere only applies as long as Islamists don't come to power, then democracy is thrown out and the guns brought it.
Oh my.
Democracy is something we haven't achieved -yet I'm not sure if people wholeheartedly are asking for it in its pure meaning.
However I find the "military dictatorship" extraction from the recent incidents too harsh -which were contradictively the indicators of how Turkish society was more and more getting used to using their democratic rights, being aware of its effect as a measure against policies they don't agree.
Don't like sexual content? Sheesh, Banquo's Ghost was right: you do need to get out more. :inquisitive:
:laugh4:
It depends on the content itself, I don't know whether that word, and you know it anyway, is kosher on the org, don't see it often here.
And yes, I do need to get out more.:help:
Kralizec
05-04-2007, 19:46
In a parlimentary system there is voting and then there is free voting. He weilds formal power over all members of the party. He can order them around (they are his subordiantes). Including demand they vote a certain way on any parlimentary vote. Also as leader of the party he can step on any one who doesn't tow the line as it were. The absolute worst he could do is toss them from the party altogether. But for a contentious issue like letting the US invade Iraq from eastern Turkey, a free vote is the only option.
For the UK this is somewhat "logical" because ministers are simultaniously MP's, and I imagine the same is true for the rest of the commonwealth.
This is not the case in the Netherlands (or other, non-Westminster style systems AFAIK), where ministers-to-be have to renounce their seats in parliament. This comes from the principle of "dualism"; the position of minister is incompatible with the position that's supposed to watch over minsiters: MP's.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.