May 11, 2007

NO, NO, NO, IT'S ONLY A DEMOCRACY IF YOU ELECT WHO I WANT YOU TO:

Warm Turkey (The Editors, 5/11/07, National Review)

[T]he first point to be made is that Turkey is settling a potentially dangerous constitutional crisis in a sensible and stable way — by an election. That settlement was helped by the European Union’s warning that a military coup would render the nation ineligible for EU membership. Alas, it was also hindered by Nicolas Sarkozy’s many statements that Turkey should not be admitted to the EU. Whatever the merit of Sarkozy’s argument — and it represents the opinion of many Europeans — now is not the time to make it. Threatening to exclude Turkey effectively tells the Turkish general staff that it has nothing to lose from a coup. In fact, like Turkey itself, it has a great deal to lose — and no great benefits to secure.

As several cool and intelligent observers — Fareed Zakaria, Claire Berlinski, and The Economist’s correspondent — have pointed out, what is happening in Turkey is not a culture war between Western secularism and jihadist Islamism. The AKP is not an Islamist party on the model of Hamas. It is a socially conservative Muslim party not unlike the German Christian Democrats. During its period in power, it has made no moves toward establishing sharia law. Its strong support for entry into the EU is entirely inconsistent with an Islamist move toward sharia. If anything, the AKP has moved in the opposite direction, recently launching a campaign against honor killings (which is more than the British or U.S. governments have done). A fervent secularist would naturally not vote for the AKP, but he or she has no reasonable grounds for thinking that it wants to impose a theocracy.

Misunderstanding on this point is based on a prior misunderstanding about the nature of Turkish secularism. This is not the separation of church and state on the U.S. model, but the control of Islam and other religions by a ministry of religious affairs — and the imposition in an overwhelmingly Muslim nation of a naked public square. This extreme secularism has always needed naked force for its survival, hence the Turkish army’s role as the guardian of the secular constitution. But this is fast becoming an impossible policy in modern Turkey. Both the evolution of democracy and the spread of Islamic piety make it essential for Turkey to develop a more tolerant secularism that will permit the public expression of religious commitment.


Elected Islamists Can Be Tamed (Bashir Goth, 5/11/07, Post Global)
For most of the Arab and Islamic world, the Bush administration’s boycott of the Palestinian Hamas-led government stands as the epitome of hypocrisy. America pushed for democracy in the Middle East, and in Palestine that’s what it got. But contrary to what it envisioned, elections across the region have brought Islamists to power.

It’s no secret that democratic elections sometimes bring out odd bedfellows, and the Islamists are undesirable bedfellows to many. It is, however, in the best interest of America and the West -- and indeed for the good of the peace in the Islamic world -- to accept Islamists when they come to power through the ballot box. The secret should be to tame them, not to shun them.


We don't need to tame them, their electorates will.

Posted by Orrin Judd at May 11, 2007 8:53 PM
Comments

"in the best interest of America and the West...to accept Islamists when they come to power through the ballot box"

Really? So when the wolves vote to have sheep for dinner, the sheep have to accept the resultes of the democratic process?

Posted by: ray at May 12, 2007 12:12 AM

How they choose their government is up to them and is their business. But when they are a threat to us, it is definitely *our* business.

Posted by: ray at May 12, 2007 12:15 AM

If they overwhelmingly elect genocidal maniacs, it is permissible to consider them all to be genocidal maniacs and to treat them accordingly. There's nothing hypocritical about it. You ask them what they want, they answer: "Total war". You give them total war. Case closed.

Posted by: Peter at May 12, 2007 4:30 AM

So no consideration or judgement is allowed if someone is "elected"? Criminals, murderers, and villains are still the basest sort no matter who elected them. And giving them power only makes them worse...

Posted by: Brian at May 12, 2007 7:04 AM

Yes, it would be. They haven't. Thus the reflexive opposition to them represents a complete failure of consideration and judgment.

Indeed, exactly as one would have expected terrorism has become more or less a non-issue since Hamas came to power and Hezbollah established a virtual state. Islamists quickly discover they have their hands full just governing their own constituents.

Posted by: oj at May 12, 2007 7:25 AM

Yes, but they're no threat to us.

Posted by: oj at May 12, 2007 7:26 AM

No, the wolf has easier time if the sheep think they're picking leasders of the flock.

Posted by: oj at May 12, 2007 7:27 AM

Here's an interesting, contrarian take on the recent Turkish kerfuffle.

Posted by: kevin whited at May 12, 2007 8:31 AM
« SO HELP HIM, ZEUS?: | Main | IF THERE'S A GOD, WHY ISN'T MY LIFE EASIER?: »