November 5, 2002
4:53 AM   Subscribe

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_3.html For Thanksgiving, a wild Turkey? Or still an ally?
posted by Postroad (13 comments total)

This post was deleted for the following reason:



 
it's sort of interesting how well the Islamist parties have done in recent elections in Turkey and Pakistan. Though in both cases I think the military remains in the hands of others, so the impact is limited. But I think it gives an indication of where public sentiment lies in these countries.
posted by zoopraxiscope at 4:58 AM on November 5, 2002


I've never heard of an 'Islamist' party!
posted by JonnyX at 5:06 AM on November 5, 2002


How unusual, an election is held and their is a clear and unequivocal winning party. Why not let the people of turkey get to grips with the ramifications of this political shift before deciding whether to include turkey in the 2nd edition axis of elvis.
posted by johnnyboy at 5:08 AM on November 5, 2002


Really, JonnyX? FYI - Islamism

It appears that the Justice and Development Party is merely Islamic, not Islamist, anyway. At least, that's how they're trying to portray themselves.
posted by lambchops at 5:12 AM on November 5, 2002


The election of Erdogan's Justice and Development Party, is the result of the Turkish people's total disillusionment with the "traditional" political parties which have had only corruption and mass pauperization to offer them. The Turkish political establishment fell in it's own trap, after creating an election law that allows only parties that gather more than 10% of the vote to be represented in parliament- in order to avoid any chance of Kurdish representation.
Turkey's Defense and Foreign policies are totally determined by the military anyway, and the internal situation is under their watchful (and not very democratic) eye anyway. Don't forget that the Islamic party's leader was ruled unfit to hold office just before the elections, on account of being convicted of reciting a poem in a rally some time ago...
posted by talos at 5:20 AM on November 5, 2002


well you learn something new each day, thanks for the link lambchops.
posted by JonnyX at 5:20 AM on November 5, 2002


Yes , thanks for the link. I found one very interesting bit of info there...

1. DIFFERENCES:
Islamists are strongly concerned about social differences, between the rich and the poor world, as well as inside the Muslim communities. As responsibility for the poor and the needing is central in Islam, any situation with unevenly divided wealth and many poor people, is unacceptable to a zealous Muslim.
Islamists react towards both the West for its reluctance to address the poverty of the world, as well as towards the rich in their own societies, who are considered equally reluctant.

Um, eaxactly how wealthy are the bin Ladens?
posted by LouReedsSon at 6:14 AM on November 5, 2002


Um, eaxactly how wealthy are the bin Ladens?

Today, the bin Laden family fortune is estimated at $5 billion, of which Osama has access to an estimated $300 million.
But Erdogan is no BinLaden in wealth or fanaticism it seems (in case anybody gets any weird ideas to start bombing Ankara)
posted by talos at 6:25 AM on November 5, 2002


No worries, Jonny and Lou. I live but to serve.
posted by lambchops at 6:34 AM on November 5, 2002


When you can't win in this world, look toward the next.
posted by The Jesse Helms at 7:11 AM on November 5, 2002


Please, I don't want to bomb anybody. I just found the definition kind of ironic, is all.
posted by LouReedsSon at 7:11 AM on November 5, 2002


LouReedsSon: I wasn't suggesting that you would. It's others I'm worried about, mainly in the current US administration.
posted by talos at 7:31 AM on November 5, 2002


Osama bin Laden is a limousine Islamist, anyway. That's not an especially new phenomenon -- lots of Communist parties were underwritten by wealthy leftists.

Islamism, for those who haven't heard my mini-rant before, is a more correct term than Islamic fundamentalism. It's a political movement within an Islamic framework, and it's important to realize that it covers a range of views. At the most extreme you have the jihadis who want to overthrow secular governments (and their Western supporters), perhaps even unite all of Islam under a new caliph. At the other end you have social justice parties who are electable and have unremarkable political programs. In the middle you have essentially the equivalent of right-wing Christian conservatives who wish to institute Islamic sharia law.

I agree with talos -- this was inevitable given the 10% threshold. It creates some interesting problems. The Turkish parliament may now not be interested in helping the US as much, but of course they still have their own regional security interests, and quotidian economic concerns. Most observers expect haggling and eventual support, though -- even if it's likely to be less enthusiastic.

In the long run it will probably be better for the Islamists to have to exercise power, which will moderate even modest tendencies toward radicalism (which has never been much in evidence in non-Arab Turkey anyway). They likely don't want to change the country's westward orientation and its interest in EU membership, for instance, and so they already know they have limits. Forcing a confrontation with the Kemalist military would be disastrous to those long-term goals; the EU has already set back their application with no time limit set.
posted by dhartung at 8:57 AM on November 5, 2002


« Older African Ceremonies   |   Ever heard of this kid? Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments