Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s office was feverishly back-tracking today after a press conference in which Erdogan, talking up his vision for dramatically greater executive branch powers while maintaining the overall structure of the Turkish government, cited “Hitler’s Germany” as an example, before also saying there were “later examples” in other countries.
Turkish officials later accused the media of taking the comment out of context, saying Erdogan meant that Hitler’s Germany was an example of a bad powerful executive branch, even though it was the only specific example he gave in comments defending his own ambitions.
Erdogan’s plan has faced growing criticism from political opposition who say it will lead to a dictatorship, though Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, a close Erdogan ally, insisted that Turkey’s “democratic spirit” was too strong for that to be a serious risk.
Nominally, the Turkish presidency has very little power, though Erdogan has used dominance over his ruling AKP party to act as a driving force in Turkey’s government for years, and the constitutional revisions may ultimately just codify the powers he has already, in practical purposes, amassed.
Turkey is comb-over and a moustache trim away from Fascism.
He sure better stop yapping and start acting before Turkey gets another Committee of Union and Progress …or even an Office of Special Plans!
As always, the mainstream media are a bunch of liars, except when what they report suits the propaganda line, at which point they become paragons of truth and journalistic virtue! Given that Erdogan is far too well aware of the expolitation that would be made, and is indeed being made, of such a comment to sya something so stupid. Since there is currently a smear campaign being conducted against him for having revealed Putin's fear of a confrontation with NATO and the poor quality of Russian aircraft when up against NATO machines, the possibility of a misquote or even deliberate disinformation, seems likely.
Come on Jason everyone and his mother is on the band wagon of attacking Erdogan. I know the adversity westerners have for "enlightened despots". However, given the world as it is Erdogan is doing what any principled leader can do under the circumstances. He supports Muslim and Palestinians rights, opposed despots like Assad and Sissi, and he has been the closest leader in attempting to solve the Kurdish problem in Turkey. He is going up against nearly half of his (secular) population, the US, Israel, Russia and the corrupt Arab regimes. I expect more from you.
That band wagon is led by some people that Jason would agree are despicable too, such as Netanyahu.
The strongest opposition inside Turkish politics right now is Abdullah Gül, who, used to be part of Erdogan's political organization, has some nasty ideas of his own, but lives in Virginia on American largess with the sort of friends that entails.
The specific controversy in Turkey about a strong-President system is that it contradicts the "unitary state" and requires some sort of Federalism.
That argument actually makes little sense. But it is the argument in Turkey that Erdogan was addressing.
Erdogan's reference to Hitler made the point that a radically strong leader, the most radically strong "leader" [Fuhrer] known, was leading a unitary state, not a Federal state. Therefore, he is saying that the argument that a strong leader contradicts a unitary state is nonsense
The point was poorly made, especially before foreign eyes which have little idea of the details of what is at issue in Turkey. Any comparison to Hitler that is meant to favor a position is foolish political expression.
But this was not admission of any desire to be like Hitler, nor praise of Hitler. That misunderstands what was a foolish comparison to make.
And another thing to keep in mind is that Hitler is the west’s “monster”. He was just vying against British and French power hoping to inherit their colonial empires. The Muslims didn’t have a dog in that fight that slaughtered over 40 million people. Muslims also are free of the stigma of the halcaust. Since it was the Allies who were victors they get to write the history of Germany’s defeat. Muslim comments on Hitler don’t hold the same baggage.
Yes, he is the West's monster, but he was doing a lot more than vying against British and French power. He was a genocidal maniac.
A weak country will be attacked. The clue is it being labelled as hitler. The pretext emerges to the peak, ending with bombworks. How a fatal procrastination to settle the peace played by (you know). The dangerous mid-east still flaming since 19481967. That’s it.