Org Mobile Site
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_presidential_election,_2014
A bit old news, but news nonetheless.
Confirming the gallups' predictions, the prime-minister of Turkey. Recep Tayyip Erdoğan was elected as the new President, succeeding Abdullah Gül, from the first round.
Despite several estimations about the impact of last year's protests and Soma's mine disatser, the majority of the voters insisted on considering him as an appropriate ruler.
Of course, it worths to be mentioned that his influence is located mainly in relatively backward, less urbanized regions, as this image shows:
An autocratic, islamist, with tendancies of violently promoting Turkish interests in the Middle East or a successful negotiator with the Kurds, responsible for the financial imrovement of his country?
Personally, the party I would support did not participate in the elections, but still, I would a victory of his main opponent, Ekmeleddin İhsanoğlu, as he seems to a smaller threat to the Turkish citizens' rights, from freedom of religion to syndicalism.
A bit old news, but news nonetheless.
Confirming the gallups' predictions, the prime-minister of Turkey. Recep Tayyip Erdoğan was elected as the new President, succeeding Abdullah Gül, from the first round.
Despite several estimations about the impact of last year's protests and Soma's mine disatser, the majority of the voters insisted on considering him as an appropriate ruler.
Of course, it worths to be mentioned that his influence is located mainly in relatively backward, less urbanized regions, as this image shows:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
An autocratic, islamist, with tendancies of violently promoting Turkish interests in the Middle East or a successful negotiator with the Kurds, responsible for the financial imrovement of his country?
Personally, the party I would support did not participate in the elections, but still, I would a victory of his main opponent, Ekmeleddin İhsanoğlu, as he seems to a smaller threat to the Turkish citizens' rights, from freedom of religion to syndicalism.
I don't know enough about Turkey. I don't like where it's going under Erdogan because Turks that live here are activily influenced. Who are the grey wolves exactly, I know they are pretty damn dangerous but where do they stand?
Originally Posted by Fragony:
I don't know enough about Turkey. I don't like where it's going under Erdogan because Turks that live here are activily influenced. Who are the grey wolves exactly, I know they are pretty damn dangerous but where do they stand?
Well, the bad thing is that the Nationalist Movement Party, whose youth is the Grey Wolves, also supported Ekmeleddin İhsanoğlu, in order to create a united front with the Kemalists, against Erdoğan.I don't know enough about Turkey. I don't like where it's going under Erdogan because Turks that live here are activily influenced. Who are the grey wolves exactly, I know they are pretty damn dangerous but where do they stand?
They are quite influential, being the third largest party in Turkey (13% in the last elections), but fortunately, the Grey Wolves have limited their violent activities.
Of course, they remain the fascist scumbags of the past, if you ask me.
I dislike Erdogan but I don't know enough about the other two candidates to make an educated choice.
As a non-Turk, I'm mostly disturbed by his policy of meddling with "Turkish citizens" who were born and live abroad. This is not really new, but seems to have increased in the past few years. I don't really have a problem with getting "foreign Turks" to vote in Turkish elections, but there are some other things that do tick me off.
Erdogan deserves credit for at least trying to reconciliate with the Kurdish minority. Also my impression is that Turkey before Erdogan was too repressive against people who express their religion, so he was right to relax those restrictions - but it seems to have gone beyond that.
EDIT: after some brief reading on teh wiki, I lean towards Demirtaş.
As a non-Turk, I'm mostly disturbed by his policy of meddling with "Turkish citizens" who were born and live abroad. This is not really new, but seems to have increased in the past few years. I don't really have a problem with getting "foreign Turks" to vote in Turkish elections, but there are some other things that do tick me off.
Erdogan deserves credit for at least trying to reconciliate with the Kurdish minority. Also my impression is that Turkey before Erdogan was too repressive against people who express their religion, so he was right to relax those restrictions - but it seems to have gone beyond that.
EDIT: after some brief reading on teh wiki, I lean towards Demirtaş.
A Kurdish win would be a very interesting outcome as I'll wonder what would happen. Rather like Sinn Fein winning the British elections.
Turkey is almost unique in the Islamic world, in that its secularists actually have a worse history of brutality and oppression that its Islamists.
But as an individual, Erdogan has shown himself to have quite the authoritarian streak, so I think its time for him to go.
But as an individual, Erdogan has shown himself to have quite the authoritarian streak, so I think its time for him to go.
I don't trust Erdogan.
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr:
Turkey is almost unique in the Islamic world, in that its secularists actually have a worse history of brutality and oppression that its Islamists.
Actually, since Islamism is a very recent phenomon, that's the case in most muslim countries. The Saddams, Assads and Gaddaffis were/are secular.Turkey is almost unique in the Islamic world, in that its secularists actually have a worse history of brutality and oppression that its Islamists.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
Actually, since Islamism is a very recent phenomon, that's the case in most muslim countries. The Saddams, Assads and Gaddaffis were/are secular.
Doesn't the old Caliphates fall under Islamism, hence why ISIS is calling itself a new Caliphate? Also, to what degree was the Ottoman Empire secular? my understanding was that it was an Islamic bureaucracy through and through with Islam as a state religion.Actually, since Islamism is a very recent phenomon, that's the case in most muslim countries. The Saddams, Assads and Gaddaffis were/are secular.
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name:
Doesn't the old Caliphates fall under Islamism, hence why ISIS is calling itself a new Caliphate? Also, to what degree was the Ottoman Empire secular? my understanding was that it was an Islamic bureaucracy through and through with Islam as a state religion.
Modern islamism, like most "let's get back to the good ol' days" movements, bears little resemblance to what was done in the past. It's a modern phenomenon.Doesn't the old Caliphates fall under Islamism, hence why ISIS is calling itself a new Caliphate? Also, to what degree was the Ottoman Empire secular? my understanding was that it was an Islamic bureaucracy through and through with Islam as a state religion.
And Islamism does not refer to simply having a state religion.
The Ottomans and the Caliphates were quite similar to their European contemporaries, with varying degrees of religious zeal depending on the whims of the current monarch.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
Actually, since Islamism is a very recent phenomon, that's the case in most muslim countries. The Saddams, Assads and Gaddaffis were/are secular.
I think you are opening up a can of worms there on a number of levels. Whether or not Islamism is a modern phenomenon is very much debatable - personally I think that you will find Islamism dates back to the original Caliphate and all its successors right up until the last widely-recognised Caliphate in the form of the Ottoman Empire. Remember Ataturk's 'Jihad' against the Greeks on Western Turkey? Remember the 'Army of Islam' that was going to blaze a trail across central Asia during WWI? I think there is a perception that Islamism is a modern phenomenon because it stands in starker contrast to the modern secular regimes when compared with the more theocratic regimes that existed in the past throughout the Islamic world. But there is nothing modern when it comes to core Islamist principles, they have been around for as long as Islam has. Actually, since Islamism is a very recent phenomon, that's the case in most muslim countries. The Saddams, Assads and Gaddaffis were/are secular.
The other can of worms is about whether you could call the likes of the Saddams, Assads and Gaddaffi's as secular. Saddam Hussein gave political offices almost exlusively to Sunni's, Assad did the opposite to a lesser extent with Shias. Gaddaffi's 'Green Book' said that Islam was a core part of his 'third way' alternative to capitalism/communism.
Elements have been around for centuries, sure.
Conservative Christianity and capitalism have also been around for centuries, but that doesn't mean that Neo-Conservatism isn't a modern ideology.
Calling for 'Jihad' has little relevance for Islamism. Its totalitarianism is a much bigger feature, and that's an outlook on the state and society that's very much a modern thing.
Conservative Christianity and capitalism have also been around for centuries, but that doesn't mean that Neo-Conservatism isn't a modern ideology.
Calling for 'Jihad' has little relevance for Islamism. Its totalitarianism is a much bigger feature, and that's an outlook on the state and society that's very much a modern thing.
Young is relative, I would put it at around 1900, arab-nationalism being a bit behind in the age of nationalism.
Originally Posted by Fragony:
Young is relative, I would put it at around 1900, arab-nationalism being a bit behind in the age of nationalism.
I said "modern", not "young". Sayyed Qutb is usually considered the founder of Islamism(although there were obviously someone before him), and he wrote in the 40's.Young is relative, I would put it at around 1900, arab-nationalism being a bit behind in the age of nationalism.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
I said "modern", not "young". Sayyed Qutb is usually considered the founder of Islamism(although there were obviously someone before him), and he wrote in the 40's.
That isn't true, Qutb is twenties or soI said "modern", not "young". Sayyed Qutb is usually considered the founder of Islamism(although there were obviously someone before him), and he wrote in the 40's.
Originally Posted by Fragony:
That isn't true, Qutb is twenties or so
Born in 1906, he started writing from around the 40's, while his most influential work, the Milestones, was written in 1964.That isn't true, Qutb is twenties or so
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
Born in 1906, he started writing from around the 40's, while his most influential work, the Milestones, was written in 1964.
Maybe we are talking about a different person, but nobody refutes that he is the father of arab-nationalism and the founding the muslim brotherhood, different Qudt probably, must be due to arab family ties lol.Born in 1906, he started writing from around the 40's, while his most influential work, the Milestones, was written in 1964.
Originally Posted by Fragony:
Maybe we are talking about a different person, but nobody refutes that he is the father of arab-nationalism and the founding the muslim brotherhood, different Qudt probably, must be arab familie ties lol.
(Pan-)Arab Nationalism and the Muslim Brotherhood are two very different things. They grew largely as a response to each other, with really the only thing in common being decolonization.Maybe we are talking about a different person, but nobody refutes that he is the father of arab-nationalism and the founding the muslim brotherhood, different Qudt probably, must be arab familie ties lol.
Arab Nationalism includes guys like Saddam and Assad. Islamism is Qutb, Khomeini, Hamas and such.
The founder of the Muslim Brotherhood was Hassan al-Banna, by the way.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
(Pan-)Arab Nationalism and the Muslim Brotherhood are two very different things. They grew largely as a response to each other, with really the only thing in common being decolonization.
Arab Nationalism includes guys like Saddam and Assad. Islamism is Qutb, Khomeini, Hamas and such.
The founder of the Muslim Brotherhood was Hassan al-Banna, by the way.
Could be argued that islamism is mostly arab nationalism, I am not in very bad company when saying (not claiming) that. It's just about accepted that it is but I am open to other interpertations.(Pan-)Arab Nationalism and the Muslim Brotherhood are two very different things. They grew largely as a response to each other, with really the only thing in common being decolonization.
Arab Nationalism includes guys like Saddam and Assad. Islamism is Qutb, Khomeini, Hamas and such.
The founder of the Muslim Brotherhood was Hassan al-Banna, by the way.
Originally Posted by Fragony:
Could be argued that islamism is mostly arab nationalism, I am not in very bad company when saying (not claiming) that. It's just about accepted that it is but I am open to other interpertations.
No, definietely not.Could be argued that islamism is mostly arab nationalism, I am not in very bad company when saying (not claiming) that. It's just about accepted that it is but I am open to other interpertations.
Arab Nationalism refers to the anti-colonial forces in the later part of the 19th century, which resulted in the strongmen replacing the monarchies during the 50's. Ie. people like Nasser, the Ba'ath party, Gadaffi and so on. They have nothing to do with Islamism, and indeed many of its leading ideologues weren't even muslim. For example, the founder of the Ba'ath movement, Michel Aflaq, was a greek orthodox christian.
To Arab Nationalists, Islam is considered a product of Arab culture, and celebrated as such.
In Islamism, Islam is simply everything.
I wouldn't say definatily not, there are enough experts with more than enough gravitas that do make the link between arab nationalism and islamism, and basicly see it as the same thing; islamism being a political ideoligy being disguised by a religion, in the end it's all about power.
Originally Posted by Fragony:
I wouldn't say definatily not, there are enough experts with more than enough gravitas that do make the link between arab nationalism and islamism, and basicly see it as the same thing; islamism being a political ideoligy being disguised by a religion, in the end it's all about power.
No, that would not make any sense at all.I wouldn't say definatily not, there are enough experts with more than enough gravitas that do make the link between arab nationalism and islamism, and basicly see it as the same thing; islamism being a political ideoligy being disguised by a religion, in the end it's all about power.
It's basically like saying communism and capitalism is the same because it's all about money. No expert would ever say islamism and arab nationalism to be the same movement.
You could say that Islamism is also nationalist, but that's a completely different thing to saying arab nationalism and islamism is the same. Nationalism is a general idea, while arab nationalism refers to a very specific political movement.
But even with that distinction, I would still find it very silly to call Islamism nationalist, since I see it as very clearly internationalist. Chauvinist (in the marxist sense) fits much, much better.
I am not saying it, just saying that others are saying it. It aren't the least respepected, Gilles Kepel for example.
Originally Posted by Fragony:
I am not saying it, just saying that others are saying it. It aren't the least respepected, Gilles Kepel for example.
Post a linky. I have a slight feeling you've mixed up some terms.I am not saying it, just saying that others are saying it. It aren't the least respepected, Gilles Kepel for example.
There's no way in hell a political scientist is going to claim that Saddam and Khomeini represent the same movement.
Edit: Gilles Kepel makes a clear distinction between arab nationalism and Islamism, by explaining the rise of the latter by the failures of the former.
Originally Posted by Kepel:
The first phase, from September 1970 to 1 February 1979 is the formative one. In the Arab world, the first date epitomises the demise of Arab nationalism, coinciding with the death of Nasser and civil war in Jordan. This opened a huge window of opportunity for an alternative ideology.
(my emphasis)The first phase, from September 1970 to 1 February 1979 is the formative one. In the Arab world, the first date epitomises the demise of Arab nationalism, coinciding with the death of Nasser and civil war in Jordan. This opened a huge window of opportunity for an alternative ideology.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
Post a linky. I have a slight feeling you've mixed up some terms.
There's no way in hell a political scientist is going to claim that Saddam and Khomeini represent the same movement.
http://books.google.nl/books/about/J...oC&redir_esc=yPost a linky. I have a slight feeling you've mixed up some terms.
There's no way in hell a political scientist is going to claim that Saddam and Khomeini represent the same movement.
Pretty good read, get latest edition if you want to read, adds a few chapters
Originally Posted by Fragony:
http://books.google.nl/books/about/J...oC&redir_esc=y
Pretty good read, get latest edition if you want to read, adds a few chapters
Reading his article about this book(excerpt in my edit above) explains things wonderfully: you've misunderstood.http://books.google.nl/books/about/J...oC&redir_esc=y
Pretty good read, get latest edition if you want to read, adds a few chapters
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
Reading his article about this book(excerpt in my edit above) explains things wonderfully: you've misunderstood.
No I didn't, it never says it's the same, only that it's connected.Reading his article about this book(excerpt in my edit above) explains things wonderfully: you've misunderstood.
Originally Posted by Fragony:
No I didn't, it never says it's the same, only that it's connected.
What?No I didn't, it never says it's the same, only that it's connected.
Originally Posted by Fragony:
I wouldn't say definatily not, there are enough experts with more than enough gravitas that do make the link between arab nationalism and islamism, and basicly see it as the same thing; islamism being a political ideoligy being disguised by a religion, in the end it's all about power.
"Connected" =/= "basically the same thing".I wouldn't say definatily not, there are enough experts with more than enough gravitas that do make the link between arab nationalism and islamism, and basicly see it as the same thing; islamism being a political ideoligy being disguised by a religion, in the end it's all about power.
They are connected in the sense that they arose in the same general area. That's about where the connection ends. And reading chapter 3 of Kepel's book (found here) reveals that he thinks the same.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
What?
"Connected" =/= "basically the same thing".
They are connected in the sense that they arose in the same general area. That's about where the connection ends. And reading chapter 3 of Kepel's book (found here) reveals that he thinks the same.
That's about the seventies, I am talking about the twentiesWhat?
"Connected" =/= "basically the same thing".
They are connected in the sense that they arose in the same general area. That's about where the connection ends. And reading chapter 3 of Kepel's book (found here) reveals that he thinks the same.
Edit, pretty damn awesome that this book is publshed online, good find.
Originally Posted by Fragony:
That's about the seventies, I am talking about the twenties
There is no mention of the 20's in Kepel's book(handy free edition).That's about the seventies, I am talking about the twenties
Further, Islamism was not properly developed as an ideology until after WW2.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO