Learn this from Turkey

[Vitamin_C]

Yes but you have to make that analysis in the light of Turkish history. When Ataturk made Turkey a secular country, most people in Turkey were still Islamist. Being a visionary he knew why Turks had been in decline and what needed to be done to regain some parity with Europe.

Ataturk knew that people might try to revert back to the non-secular system which prevented the Ottoman empire from growing, so he enshrined secularism in the Turkish constitution and made Military responsible for protecting secularism which they did with at-least 4 coups in the 20th century when political parties tried to bring Islamization.

We cannot compare Turkish coups to Pakistani coups because Turkish military has a constitutional responsibility to remove a government that wants to attack the secular foundation of modern Turkey.

Well to be honest no one is perfect and we all know what he is all about. I also differ with most of his policies and political stunts, but what I wanted to say by starting this thread is the role of military in politics and how general public has to react to send army back in barracks. If you say, it was staged, that seems quite far fetched, you can stage a few people with few locations attacked, but it was hundreds of attacks with military tanks and helicopters. Many loyal generals were either killed or kidnapped, there was open firing on general public, bombing on parliament etc etc.

 

[Kavalier]

Yes but you have to make that analysis in the light of Turkish history. When Ataturk made Turkey a secular country, most people in Turkey were still Islamist. Being a visionary he knew why Turks had been in decline and what needed to be done to regain some parity with Europe.

Ataturk knew that people might try to revert back to the non-secular system which prevented the Ottoman empire from growing, so he enshrined secularism in the Turkish constitution and made Military responsible for protecting secularism which they did with at-least 4 coups in the 20th century when political parties tried to bring Islamization.

We cannot compare Turkish coups to Pakistani coups because Turkish military has a constitutional responsibility to remove a government that wants to attack the secular foundation of modern Turkey.

How conviniently have you put aside the bad governance, economic decline and political instability which was a speciality of Turkey during the whole 20th century when their army was interfering in all aspects like ours. Please compare where was Turkey when they were secular and army had a big role in politics and where does Turkey stand now in the last 25 years or so, both economically, strategically and as an international player /stakeholder. Tell me what was their parity with Europe in that whole 70 years period and what is their parity in the last 25 years? This is all because of people's backing, no nation can prosper or move ahead without getting people involved, this is the whole point of discussion.

Protecting the ideological fronts of the country, this is the same excuse our military janta had always had. Actually, our military even today uses the same sentence, just pick any last speech of army chief or any havaldar etc, this one sentence will be ensured in every message, even in tweets. So no wonder if Turkish military was using the same slogan, in fact that is the only letigimate excuse for a military to take over, otherwise how can a military conquer its own people and government.

Last but not the least, what is democracy? In its very raw definitions, isn't it the voice of the majority? If so, and if Turkish majority wants their country to have a particular identity, why deny them? Why force them to accept what majority of them do not want by military coups and constitutional amendments?

 

[Vitamin_C]

You are missing one important point: It is constitutional responsibility of Turkish Military to intervene on political scene if the secular foundation of Turkey is under threat. Talking about economy or governance is irrelevant here. Military people are not economists or governors, they intervene temporarily for the continuity of the long-term secular vision of Turkey. Without secularism you can see the situation of the Muslim world.

How conviniently have you put aside the bad governance, economic decline and political instability which was a speciality of Turkey during the whole 20th century when their army was interfering in all aspects like ours. Please compare where was Turkey when they were secular and army had a big role in politics and where does Turkey stand now in the last 25 years or so, both economically, strategically and as an international player /stakeholder. Tell me what was their parity with Europe in that whole 70 years period and what is their parity in the last 25 years? This is all because of people's backing, no nation can prosper or move ahead without getting people involved, this is the whole point of discussion.

Protecting the ideological fronts of the country, this is the same excuse our military janta had always had. Actually, our military even today uses the same sentence, just pick any last speech of army chief or any havaldar etc, this one sentence will be ensured in every message, even in tweets. So no wonder if Turkish military was using the same slogan, in fact that is the only letigimate excuse for a military to take over, otherwise how can a military conquer its own people and government.

Last but not the least, what is democracy? In its very raw definitions, isn't it the voice of the majority? If so, and if Turkish majority wants their country to have a particular identity, why deny them? Why force them to accept what majority of them do not want by military coups and constitutional amendments?

 

[Kavalier]

You are missing one important point: It is constitutional responsibility of Turkish Military to intervene on political scene if the secular foundation of Turkey is under threat. Talking about economy or governance is irrelevant here. Military people are not economists or governors, they intervene temporarily for the continuity of the long-term secular vision of Turkey. Without secularism you can see the situation of the Muslim world.

And with secularism, we have also seen what Turkey looked like and how they are now with continual democratic process. Most of the Muslim world's problem is not secularism or liberalism or anything else. No matter what kind of constitution you bring to an illiterate and mentally enslaved nation, it won't lift them up in anyway. By broader definition of secularism, China is by no means even near to be a secular state, whereas India is a so called secular country to its core, but the difference is in front of you. What is happening in secular India?

Secularism is good, very good, if properly practised, and in my opinion, Islam is very basis of secularism. But one cannot impart the secular or even Islamic values in illiterate and under developed minds. Do you think America is secular? India?