The Best Cyprus Community

Skip to content


ECHR: CASE OF SOLOMOU v. TURKEY

How can we solve it? (keep it civilized)

Postby denizaksulu » Mon Jul 07, 2008 10:07 pm

repulsewarrior wrote:
denizaksulu wrote:
repulsewarrior wrote:In this case Judgement, without Judge Jury and Executioners, this is the problem, VP. Indeed it is not enough, and the credibility of your "State" is neither demonstrated nor bettered by the ignorance. If you love this "country" you call the KKTC, this is important. You have and had the opportunity to better yourselves, and to show your esteem for the word we call Freedom, instead the "dogs" that died haunt you as Humans. Things never stay the way they are, and this Problem will not remain the same. Either way VP you must take a look at yourself, if you believe that you reflect a common thought, having the support of other members, to me you are not the wiley old crow for nothing, you have the book. just beyond the dogma though is a change which if it is not called for, secures the corruption that allows for journalists to be murdered, and the glory that is Turkey to be held Internationally disdained. Where is in this matter, the Rule of Law, abrogated to the ECHR, don't you take that as incompetance, at a Governmental level. Denktash was there? no one called for a demonstration of force? riot police, buses, more police than the expected demonstrators...why?
did someone have to die? ...didn't matter who, save a lot of money this way, simple brutality, it always works, this was the set up, it seems with so few in authority, capable of something better, (and more to be in complete control,) this was not demonstrated, it is a failing we all regret; as a militant, VP you must fight this for there to be a shine.

...do me a favour, reread the Manifesto and make a comment. I would like to know how it would effect/affect you personally.

reconsider enclaves and suggest to me where these communities can be most useful to us all, in the north and the south. (boy...that's asking alot), but tell me something else about enclaves other than the "bad" memories, and that these communities may not be successful. Think of them rationally, give me your help.



Forget about enclaves. I have images of 'Reservations' in mind. (American Indian style)


you are not using your imagination deniz. beyond the dogma..., in the future, think how the repopulation of this island benefits both of our survival, with about fifteen enclaves, in a manner where in the future as communities their distinction will add to the quality of choices their society can support. This divesity of "Turks" and "Greeks" will make the Cypriot culture, us as this island's dwellers one of the most socialised people in the world. It adds to our security, in that [color=red]there is no longer a "border",[/color] it recognises the equality of two Jurisdictions where a Majority can demonstrate as Persons to their Minorities an inclusivity within their own frontiers, which when governed by a Federal authority that is strong because it is free of a demographic bias, it can set the standards, to represent us as Sovereign over the island, and to defend us and our Individual Rights, as its people.

Money may solve the problems of the displaced as Individuals. And in any case their Individual Rights cannot be ignored. However, our sense of community, and the sharing it involved was destroyed. No sense of blame can mask the need for reconcilliation, if this Hertance important to all Mankind (as well as ourselves) is to be saved. Cyprus is an island after all. Our choice will define our identity as Humans, having been given this choice by the rest of the world, it is our opportunity to add to this canvas.

...choose wisely, I say, embrace a change where the future can be a sacrafice that is worth something more.

...Things cannot stay the same.

...enclaves, is not a dirty word. it is just a word. It merely defines geography, only "we" can make it "dirty" if we choose to.

VP, I hope that you too, will answer my question with your serious consideration as well.



I fail to see when you say there will be no border and you can have an'enclave' at the same time. There is some inconsistency here.
User avatar
denizaksulu
Forum Addict
Forum Addict
 
Posts: 36050
Joined: Thu May 10, 2007 11:04 am

Postby Kifeas » Mon Jul 07, 2008 10:16 pm

Tim Drayton wrote:
Kifeas wrote:
Tim Drayton wrote:There is a generally accepted principal that is summed up in the Latin expression "Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non que negat (the burden of proof rests on who asserts, not on who denies).


Tim, I honestly have you down for a much more sincere interlocutor, than what you seem to come across in this case. What is it that you want me to prove, the self-evident? The obvious? You want me to prove what every single educated and sincere Turk won't even deny?

What is it that you deny? That in Turkey there is no "powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism? That there is no "disdain for the importance of human rights?" That there is no such practice as that of "identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause?" That in Turkey there is no such thing as "the supremacy of the military/avid militarism," etc, etc..? Do you by any chance also want me to prove to you that I am not an elephant?


I am dealing with an interlocutor who says, "I am off to the beach, you carry on if you like." How serious is that?

Joking apart, this is such a broad topic that I can scarcely muster the energy to begin to tackle it. I am sure you have already made your mind up anyway.

In the first place, the list of criteria you have provided are for determining whether a particular REGIME is fascist or not. Kemalism is an IDEOLOGY not a REGIME.

Kemalism was a revolutionary ideology that was born when, unlike previous reform movements that sought continuity with the Ottoman past, a total break was made with this anachronistic order and a radically new Turkish Republic was created. Kemalism is a project which aimed to modernise and Westernise Turkey. It essentially wished to secure the benefits of the European reformation and enlightenment by removing people from the clutches religious dogmatism. It has secured a broadening and strengthening of rights for ordinary Turkish people. It beggars belief that such an ideology can be described as fascist. You seem to be implying that all educated and sincere Turks support your thesis. Well, I am sorry but I contend that you will not find a single Turkish person who equates Kemalism with fascism, and I will maintain that stance until proved otherwise.

Turning to the question of REGIMES, which the set of criteria you have provided are designed to measure, I can identify at least seven different stages within the political history of the Turkish Republic, and very different scores would be awarded in each of these periods. The initial period of one-party rule, perversely, would produce very high scores on most counts. This was a period of dictatorship and one man rule, but unlike many other dictatorships in history, I would argue that it was a benevolent dictatorship. A great many progressive changes occurred in this time. To me, the basic litmus test for fascism has to be whether it is reactionary or progressive. The early years of the Turkish Republic in my view fail this test and so this regime cannot be classified as fascist.

If, on the other hand, we examine the junta led by Kenan Evren that came to power in the coup of 12 September 1980, there is a very different story. This junta abolished the constitution, suspended the rule of law, closed all political parties. Vast numbers of people were detained and tortured. Academic freedom and civil society were crushed. Many academics and intellectuals found themselves unemployed. A new far more restrictive constitution was introduced that limited academic freedom and made it difficult for civil society to organise. The generals also unsuccessfully attempted to bar all those who had been active in politics before the coup from standing for election, so that they could stage sham elections contested by ther own carefully vetted candidates. They failed in the last attempt. Yes, this was fascism in all its ugliness.

However, what does this have to do with the ideology of Kemalism? One of the justifications advanced by the generals for staging this coup was the need to abolish the 1961 constitution. This constitution, the most liberal that Turkey has seen and which permitted civil society and academic freedom to flourish, was actually the work of the Kemalist officers who staged the 1960 coup. This demonstrates that the 1980 coup was anti-Kemalist in nature.

It is true that the legacy of 12 September still lives on in various ways in Turkey. You first have to establish that these phenomena are Kemalist in nature if you wish to use them as a stick with which to beat Kemalism.

Moreover, one has to look for the real architect of the 1980 coup. An abundance of circumstantial evidence has amassed suggesting that the CIA engineered this coup. I am sure the time will come, as more documents are revealed, when this ceases to be a matter of debate. Were the same hidden hands not behind the coup that brought the fascist junta to power in Athens in 1967? Does the fact that Greece was once ruled by a fascist junta mean that all Greeks by nature are fascist? This is infantile thinking.

I certainly agree that in the modern world no country should have an official, guiding ideology. There should be more pluralism in Turkey. However, when placed in a historical context, Kemalism was a revolutionary and progressive ideology which took the Turkish people out of a very dark period indeed and made them citizens of a modern, democratic state in which the rule of law applies.


answers.com wrote:Mideast & N. Africa Encyclopedia: Kemalism
The official present-day political ideology of the Republic of Turkey.


Kemalism refers variously to the thought of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk (1881 - 1938); the ideology and regime of the single-party period (1920 - 1950) in the Republic of Turkey; the official Turkish political ideology to date (semiofficial in the 1961 constitution, fully official and imperative in the 1982 constitution); the principles of national education and citizenship training; the hegemonic public philosophy in contemporary Turkey; and finally to the name of the persistent Turkish personality cult.
………………….

Westernist Reforms in Turkey
........…….. Kemal and his followers, after abolishing the sultanate and the caliphate, proceeded to build up an authoritarian, single-party state, with discernable totalitarian characteristics in certain ideological and institutional spheres. The Kemalists implemented, alternately gradually and forcefully, a series of radical reforms in the political, legal, educational, and cultural fields, including adoption of Western legal codes (some liberal, such as the Swiss civil code; some fascistic, such as the penal and labor codes);…….............
..........................……………

Interpretation and Classification of Kemalism
Partly impressed by the Westernist reformist and laicist character of "cultural Kemalism," most interpreters - Turkish and foreign alike - have designated Kemalism as a tutelary democracy overlooking or playing down the severely antidemocratic essence of "political Kemalism" both as an ideology and as a regime. This standard interpretation of Kemalism has also been partly guided by an imputation of false causality, in the sense that the development of the single-party regime after the end of World War II into a sort of multiparty parliamentary system (1946 - 1950), as a result of external pressures, was attributed to the unfolding of the internal dynamics of the first thirty formative years of the Turkish republic. As a matter of fact, this rootless parliamentarianism has been thrice interrupted by military coups (1960, 1971, 1980) of varying degrees of violence - all declared to be staged, among but above all other things, in the cause of Kemalism.

Kemalism as a "Third Way" Ideology
Kemalism was an early brand of those "third way" (tertium genus) ideologies and regimes of the post - World War I world of late-modernizing capitalist countries which were to borrow further elements, especially in the 1930s and early 1940s, from the full fascisms of interbellum Europe. Kemalism was antisocialist and anti-Marxist, antiliberal but not anticapitalist; that is, it was corporatist capitalist. It belonged more to the solidaristic species of corporatism formulated by the Turkish social and political thinker Ziya Gökalp, only later assuming partial fascistic overtones in certain ideological and institutional spheres. The Kemalist single-party regime rested on a class alliance of civilian-military petite bourgeoisie, big landowners, a nationalistic commercial bourgeoisie, and an incipient and subordinate industrial bourgeoisie, which it was the explicit ideology of the Kemalists to create and strengthen through neomercantilist policies of economic statism (etatism). This developmentalist objective required accelerated capital accumulation through labor policies which provided a cheap and disciplined labor force for private enterprises, for state economic enterprises, and for joint ventures between the two and through fiscal policies that called for transfer of resources from the agricultural countryside to industry and the urban centers, especially after the Great Depression.

"Transformation" Becomes Repression
The Kemalist regime, aiming at the creation of a bourgeois society without liberal politics, was not a de jure but a de facto dictatorial regime. Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, as the "greatest father" (Ata-Türk) of the nation, as the "eternal chief" of the single party, as the president of the republic, as the effective head of the executive branch (in breach of the 1924 Constitution that formally called for a sort of cabinet system) which governed in accordance with his directives, sat at the apex of this system. The parliamentary facade but thinly veiled the fact that the legislature (the Grand National Assembly) was regularly "packed" by Atatürk and his lieutenants, second-degree electors rubber-stamping the candidates handpicked by the former. The parliament, in Kemal Atatürk's own words, was coterminous with the parliamentary group of his Republican People's Party.
In other words, Kemalism was a plebiscitary, Bonapartist-charismatic "chief-system" in whose ideology the identity of the charismatic leader, the nation and its will, the state, and the party was emphatically expressed. Opposition, pluralism, and freedom of press and association, among others, were suppressed in the name of "transformationism" as against the overstretched category of reactionary forces. This attitude and its attendant formal and informal arrangements were to leave a durable imprint on the political culture, political-legal regime, and institutional structures of contemporary Turkey - the most recent fortification of which was to be made after the 1980 military coup in the form of the 1980 Constitution, the new Political Parties Act, the Higher Education Act, the Associations Act, and so forth. Certain liberalizations of the 1950s and 1960s had already been reversed immediately after the semicoup of 1971, restorationist reorderings and preparations of which were to culminate in the systemic overhauling executed by the 1980 coup.
………................................................….

by TAHA PARLA


Conclusion:
Kemalism, the official ideology of the Turkish state as per its own constitution, is a quasi-fascist, totalitarian, oppressive, manipulative, domineering and purely anti-democratic ideology!
User avatar
Kifeas
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 4927
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2005 10:19 am
Location: Lapithos, Kyrenia, now Pafos; Cyprus.

Postby Kifeas » Mon Jul 07, 2008 10:32 pm

Tim Drayton wrote:Well, I am sorry but I contend that you will not find a single Turkish person who equates Kemalism with fascism, and I will maintain that stance until proved otherwise.


Sorry, but there are many Turkish intellectual people that do so, such as TAHA PARLA for example who wrote the above article.

Here is one very good book for all Turks and TCs to read, by the above Turkish intellectual and University professor.


Corporatist Ideology in Kemalist Turkey
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Corpor ... ?itm=1#TOC

Image
User avatar
Kifeas
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 4927
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2005 10:19 am
Location: Lapithos, Kyrenia, now Pafos; Cyprus.

Postby denizaksulu » Mon Jul 07, 2008 10:47 pm

Kifeas wrote:
Tim Drayton wrote:Well, I am sorry but I contend that you will not find a single Turkish person who equates Kemalism with fascism, and I will maintain that stance until proved otherwise.


Sorry, but there are many Turkish intellectual people that do so, such as TAHA PARLA for example who wrote the above article.

Here is one very good book for all Turks and TCs to read, by the above Turkish intellectual and University professor.


Corporatist Ideology in Kemalist Turkey
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Corpor ... ?itm=1#TOC

Image



The review states as 'partly Fascist' and as a suggestion. This is hardly evidence as hardcore Fascism. Perhaps it is still worth reading.
User avatar
denizaksulu
Forum Addict
Forum Addict
 
Posts: 36050
Joined: Thu May 10, 2007 11:04 am

Postby Tim Drayton » Tue Jul 08, 2008 1:44 pm

Kifeas, thanks for the book review. I have found the following information about it:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.syracuseuniversitypress.syr. ... urkey.html

Review
"This is an iconoclastic essay by a prominent political scientist and a talented and knowledgeable U. S. colleague. The thrust of their argument is that Kemalism, the official ideology of the early Turkish Republic (1923-1950), is not compatible with or favorably inclined toward liberal democracy, contrary to what most literature about Turkey claims. Instead, they suggested that this is a corporatist, partly fascist ideology, intolerant of dissent and opposition. They do not deny that Kemalism and its author Kemal Ataturk, founder of the Turkish Republic, made great contributions to Turkish politics and society. But they argue that its time has passed. The association of Kemalism with fascism may sound harsh but should not be too surprising, since the Kemalist Republic developed at the same time that Mussolini was imposing his fascist regime on Italy. . . . No other comparable work exists. . . . Highly Recommended."
Choice
Description
This book provides an informed analysis of the ideological content of Kemalism the name given to Mustafa Kemal Atatürk's party's political thought and practice and the persistently official and semi-official, hegemonic ideology of the Turkish Republic, formally founded in 1923. Through a textual and contextual analysis of Kemalism in Atatürk's speeches and the official documents of the ruling Republican People's Party, Taha Parla and Andrew Davison offer fresh interpretations of the political, economic, social, and cultural goals of the Kemalist version of Turkish nationalism. They also provide an astute analysis of the power and authority that Atatürk and his colleagues believed were necessary to achieve their implementation, and of the institutions created in that process.
Kemalism as a democratizing and secularizing framework for modern governance is debated by illuminating Kemalism's emphatic and self-conscious, corporatist ideological core. The authors show how Kemalism's conceptions of society, national identity, the relationship between the state and Islam, and other fundamental political dynamics require a rethinking of its democratic, secular, and modernist reputation, and its prospects for, and barriers to, a more democratic Turkey within the Kemalist legacy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The authors argue that Kemalism "was a partly fascist ideology". I preveiously stated that nobody in Turkey equates Kemalism with fascism and I stand by that claim. Saying that an ideology is partly fascist is not the same thing as equating that ideology with fascism.

I would direct your attention to the final sentence of the above quote. Actually, the authors are not rejecting Kemalism outright, but suggesting that it requires to undergo major modifications to bring it up to date. After all, this ideology was born at a time when a great many European countries were under the rule of a single strong man. Europe has changed and Kemalism needs to do the same. The authors want to see "a more democratic Turkey within the Kemalist legacy."

Anyway, thanks for bringing this book to my attention. I intend to buy it.
User avatar
Tim Drayton
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 8226
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 1:32 am
Location: Limassol/Lemesos

Postby repulsewarrior » Wed Jul 09, 2008 2:05 am

It is a matter of intent.

Ataturk did not gain his stature from the "Turkish" alone, all "Turks" were with him, because of his recognition of their closeness to the land all called Turkey. Kemalists have made their leadership an exclusivity to "Turks", that are people of Turkish origin, why "unTurkishness" should be so much an issue for them.

We would do well as Cypriots to note the similarities in our own politics, in our efforts to reform ourselves, and to end the Impasse.
User avatar
repulsewarrior
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 7607
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2006 2:13 am
Location: homeless in Canada

Postby Kikapu » Wed Jul 09, 2008 12:02 pm

denizaksulu wrote:DT, I am confused as to who is (in your opinion ) alienating more TCs. I dont think its VP. But that does not necessarily mean I am in agreement with him 100%. Kiks with his idealism would be alienating TCs more. From where I stand, Kiks will have trouble getting a majority vote in the north, whereas VP would. I would like to see a point where their ideas would merge, but that seems a long way away. They do have points where this merger is quite possible.


Deniz,

Sure VP will get more votes than me. He is after all supporting illegal acts that the TC's have been conditioned to accept over the past 34 years. Why do you think the term I created "Corrupt Society" is very appropriate for the north, is exactly what happens, when one is unable to tell the Rights from the Wrongs. This is what VP promotes every day, telling the TC's to be unethical, unprinciple, keep stolen GC land, hate the GC's and so on. But who ever said quantity is better than quality. VP promotes and supports quantity, where as, I promote and support quality, and given the chance, so will the TC community. They have been lead the wrong path by Denktash types for long time, so it will take time to realign their consciousness to once again to become an "Honest Society" that they deserve. They do not deserve to be labelled as the "Pirates of the Mediterranean" just because they have had Morally Corrupted leaders in the past which only benefited their own selfish interests, as VP is only looking after his own selfish interests. A "Fascist Snake" has many heads, but over time, they are cut off one by one as fascism is defeated and has fallen all over the world, one by one.
User avatar
Kikapu
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 13541
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 6:18 pm

Postby Kifeas » Wed Jul 09, 2008 12:24 pm

If they told them, (for their own pan-turanist irredentist, nevertheless illegitimate reasons,) and further managed to brainwash and made them "sincerely" believe that a BB Federal solution, emerging as an evolution of the (anyway bi-communal) RoC, is tantamount to them being patched-up to the “GC constitution” and the “GC administration;” while at the same time 80% of them applied and obtained the RoC passport, and claim to also be EU citizens (via the RoC’s EU membership -i.e. via what they were made to regard as a mere “GC administration;”) what else can one expect from such an absurd, confused and illogical society?
User avatar
Kifeas
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 4927
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2005 10:19 am
Location: Lapithos, Kyrenia, now Pafos; Cyprus.

Postby Oracle » Wed Jul 09, 2008 12:37 pm

An "ideology" like Kemalism is more about the people that follow it, their actions and how they put the guidelines into practice.

No matter what Kemal may have said and the "messages" he sent out .... today's Turkey as its product, is a pathetic, backward, oppressed nation.

This is indisputably a direct result of the applications of Ataturk's legacy, by whatever label. And yes, most of it is dictatorial and suggestive of a deranged mind.

They need a fresh start if they are to drag themselves into the 21st Century.

Jesus may have "said" lots of wise things ... but Christians sure interpret them in their own ridiculous fashion ....
User avatar
Oracle
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 23507
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 11:13 am
Location: Anywhere but...

Postby denizaksulu » Wed Jul 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Kikapu wrote:
denizaksulu wrote:DT, I am confused as to who is (in your opinion ) alienating more TCs. I dont think its VP. But that does not necessarily mean I am in agreement with him 100%. Kiks with his idealism would be alienating TCs more. From where I stand, Kiks will have trouble getting a majority vote in the north, whereas VP would. I would like to see a point where their ideas would merge, but that seems a long way away. They do have points where this merger is quite possible.


Deniz,

Sure VP will get more votes than me. He is after all supporting illegal acts that the TC's have been conditioned to accept over the past 34 years. Why do you think the term I created "Corrupt Society" is very appropriate for the north, is exactly what happens, when one is unable to tell the Rights from the Wrongs. This is what VP promotes every day, telling the TC's to be unethical, unprinciple, keep stolen GC land, hate the GC's and so on. But who ever said quantity is better than quality. VP promotes and supports quantity, where as, I promote and support quality, and given the chance, so will the TC community. They have been lead the wrong path by Denktash types for long time, so it will take time to realign their consciousness to once again to become an "Honest Society" that they deserve. They do not deserve to be labelled as the "Pirates of the Mediterranean" just because they have had Morally Corrupted leaders in the past which only benefited their own selfish interests, as VP is only looking after his own selfish interests. A "Fascist Snake" has many heads, but over time, they are cut off one by one as fascism is defeated and has fallen all over the world, one by one.



Perhaps in time the TCs will shed this "The Pirates of the Med" mantle, "That will take a time and a new outlook for the future. Lets hope Talat can achieve this. If he cant I am sure there are some 'young bloods' who can achieve this.

Amen/ Amin
User avatar
denizaksulu
Forum Addict
Forum Addict
 
Posts: 36050
Joined: Thu May 10, 2007 11:04 am

PreviousNext

Return to Cyprus Problem

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests