Cyprus-Forum.com

EPSILON wrote:What a comedian you are Kifeas! Now you've gone down to writing personal opinions of Turkey bashing columnists in Greek Newspapers - great!


_________________


Where was the wrong stmnt? There was not the 3 Coups? the 4th last 15 days ago?

What you are trying to prove////You are just supporting a pockeman Democracy. You however have your excusses- you have never lived in a real democratic state- how you can understand? You Always had what you have today- maybe different names- Sultan- Vezire- police station chief- Army's area chief, Attaturk, what the differences- ALL OF THEM WERE AND THEY STILL LIVE IN LUXURY AREAS/HOUSES and you are still between Afghanistan and Banlgadesh (the majority of population)_

Üskül: Kemalism not necessary in Constitution

A member of the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) and a reputed constitutional law professor, Zafer Üskül, has stated that Turkey does not need to mention the principles laid down by the country’s founder Mustafa Kemal Atatürk and his revolutions in its proposed civilian constitution.

Speaking to the Sabah daily in an interview on a civilian and “colorless” constitution, a project of the AK Party, Üskül argued that including notions such as “Atatürk nationalism” and “Atatürk principles and revolutions” in the Constitution, which are integrated in the opening provisions of the country’s main law, was unnecessary.
“Constitutions created by methods outside democracy are subject to much criticism, and they are never adopted [by the society]. We need a colorless constitution, one that does not impose any ideology on the country,” Üskül told Sabah.

He said concepts such as Atatürk nationalism, principles and revolutions, all parts of certain provisions in the Constitution, were taken as a basis by the Constitutional Court when it monitors laws. “Ideologies are the job of political parties. Any political party can defend an ideology unique to itself, and it should; that is how differences will emerge. A Kemalist party could be founded; and it most definitely should be. There will be supporters of such a party. However, constitutions should remain at an equal distance to all ideologies. We define this as a colorless constitution. This is the mentality of drafting a constitution in Europe.”

Professor Üskül also said he didn’t believe that taking out expressions that emphasize commitment to the principles and revolutions of Atatürk would create a legal vacuum. “This won’t change the fact that Mustafa Kemal Atatürk was the leader of the entire nation and he is the founder of the state of the Republic of Turkey. This is a common value. This is a common value that everyone should own up to. Mustafa Kemal Atatürk is something else; Kemalism or Atatürkism are different. In this sense, the Constitution includes traces of the Kemalist ideology.”

Üskül expressed that constitutions drafted by military governments could also be democratic, giving the example of Turkey’s 1961 Constitution. “It is said to be more democratic than many civil constitutions. The 1961 Constitution most certainly introduced an expansion of democratic rights and freedoms in comparison to the previous Constitution. However, it was the 1961 Constitution that founded the National Security Council [MGK] as a constitutional agency, and also the military Supreme Court of Appeals. It placed restrictions in the way of freedom of thought.”

Üskül said all administrative processes, including the army’s promotions and dismissals of officers or decisions of a body that supervises judges and prosecutors in the country have to be open to judicial review. He said another change the government was planning to introduce is a regulation that would amend assignment of members of the Constitutional Court and also allow the Constitutional Court to accept applications from individuals.

Kemalism's perception of science

The Turkish Academy of Sciences (TÜBA) has now rejected the candidacy of Professor Şerif Mardin three times. This is a scandal! Let me tell you the reason why.

Leaving aside those in Turkey, ask any social scientist, sociologist, historian or political scientist dealing with Ottoman-Turkish society from the US to Japan, from England to Egypt, about Şerif Mardin. All of them without exception know him. All of them must have read his articles or books as well. Then why is Mardin, now 80, not accepted as part of TÜBA? The reason is that, just like every wise social scientist, Mardin also says, "We cannot figure out society without figuring out the position of religion in that society." Using this idea as a base, Mardin wrote a book about the founder of the Nur religious community, Said Nursi, after long years of study. Kemalist pro-Atatürk and secular people of science never forgave Mardin, particularly because of this book.

11.07.2007

EMRE AKÖZ, SABAH

Nikitas wrote:Kifeas you pointed out something I have been thinking about for years- the deification of Kemal. It seems everywhere you turn in Turkey there is a picture, statue or street named after the man, in a show of adoration that does not compare with the treatment of other great statesmen elsewhere. For instance in France they do not have Napoleon or De Gaulle plastered everywhere.

Seems that the responses you got here corroborate the view of this deification. No one seems to grasp the idea that a modern republic is based on the principle of popular sovereignty and not on personality cult. It is disturbing to see that Turks do not realise that when something is so deeply entrenched and so inflexible it usually changes only with a an upheaval equal to the one that brought it on, like it happened with Communism.

Nikitas wrote:Kifeas you pointed out something I have been thinking about for years- the deification of Kemal. It seems everywhere you turn in Turkey there is a picture, statue or street named after the man, in a show of adoration that does not compare with the treatment of other great statesmen elsewhere. For instance in France they do not have Napoleon or De Gaulle plastered everywhere.

Seems that the responses you got here corroborate the view of this deification. No one seems to grasp the idea that a modern republic is based on the principle of popular sovereignty and not on personality cult. It is disturbing to see that Turks do not realise that when something is so deeply entrenched and so inflexible it usually changes only with a an upheaval equal to the one that brought it on, like it happened with Communism.