Turkey

[Danny1982]

The protests in Iran were mostly peaceful though.

Danny, I know exactly what's going on in Egypt, I spend a lot of my time in that country. He deployed tanks outside the presidential palace after protesters had been throwing molotovs at it for a day. They did nothing other than stand there.

Fair point. Iran certainly isn't a Saudi for example.

You're pushing me into defending someone I find deplorable. I dislike Morsi. But your initial statement was wrong. He has not crushed the protests and none of his responses to any of the protests have come anywhere near what Mubarak did.

Do you think Al-Qaeda were a major factor in the initially peaceful protests in Syria?

Regarding Egypt, it was just an example, probably didn't mean it to be taken that literally. I probably should have given Bahrain as an example from the start, because it clarifies my point in an easier way. So I'll give you that he didn't crush the protests as hard as Mobarak did (objectively speaking, without factoring the time he has been in power, and the delicate situation he's in regarding control over army ...etc., as IMO if he had more control over the army, he might have well asked the army to do what he asked his party members to do on the streets. But you have a fair point here, we should be talking about the absolute current situation regardless the context.)..

Two points still stand though. 1- Being democratically elected doesn't always mean that you're not going to crush the protests. It can happen that you're democratically elected, but you still don't handle the protests in a "democratic" way, something referred to sometimes as a "majority dictatorship". 2- I agree Morsi didn't use the tanks, but Iran also didn't use their tanks, or the special forces they deployed. Deploying forces other than the police doesn't necessarily mean "crushing" the protests unless they clash (on a large scale) with the protestors. They could be simply trying to preserve the peace in case the protests become violent.

Al-Qaeda as an organization weren't a major factor in the initial protests in Syria. They were a part of the quick escalation that happened after that, and after a few months they were the main player in the Syrian "revolution". But I do believe Qatar and Saudia Arabia were involved right from the start, providing money and promises that they won't give up on them, and will support them in their "revolution" till the end (later joined by Turkey, and some Western countries).

However, I have to say, the ideology of the early days protestors in Syria isn't that different from the ideology of Al-Qaeda..

 

[Danny1982]

That may be the case, however the governments are completely different from one another. A Government elected by a Democratic or parliamentary majority has the credibility of representing the people that gives it the mandate to maintain a degree of law and order. An authoritarian government which is in power by brute force has no such popular mandate because it doesn't support a majority and is only cracking down to remain in power. That's a significant difference that can't be overlooked when analyzing the nature of protests in a given country.

It probably doesn't affect how things play out that much, because if I'm crushed and not allowed to voice my opinion then it won't matter much to me if I'm among 45% of the population or 65% of the population (which is the main thing we're discussing here), but it might matter in term of having the right to do so as a leader. So in other words, you might be able to make a better case for Erdogan if he crushes the protests than for Assad for example (if they were facing the same type of protests, which incidentally isn't quite the case in reality).

However, in this case we're entering another territory. Does being elected by a majority indeed give you the right to crush the protests if necessary to maintain law and order? If we agree with this, then we'll have a hard time trying to see how Ahmedinejad did anything wrong in 2009, when he did win the elections (regardless of what you say about the system in Iran, people were protesting because they wanted somebody else to win, when in fact Ahmedinejad was the winner, and had the majority on his side).

And by the way, I'm not even criticizing Erdogan here. Honestly I don't know what I would have done if I was in the place of any of them.. However, I'm trying to find an objective way to assess these situations, regardless of how we feel towards those people, to avoid using double standards in similar situations when different people are involved (which I think is a big problem in the world right now).

I also think that Erdogan has actually drawn the extra criticism to himself by directly and actively intervening in the situation in Syria. He made many statements regarding those protests, and Assad's reactions to them, that put him in an awkward position when he finds himself in more or less a similar situation. However, I have to say, his position on Syria might also be reason why some people are giving him a pass now, a pass they wouldn't have given him if he supported somebody they don't like, like Iran for example.

 

[Raoul]

It probably doesn't affect how things play out that much, because if I'm crushed and not allowed to voice my opinion then it won't matter much to me if I'm among 45% of the population or 65% of the population (which is the main thing we're discussing here), but it might matter in term of having the right to do so as a leader. So in other words, you might be able to make a better case for Erdogan if he crushes the protests than for Assad for example (if they were facing the same type of protests, which incidentally isn't quite the case in reality).

Yes it does, because even if you're in the minority, you have the right to mobilize politically to affect change through the system which the majority have decided is the correct system for the country.

However, in this case we're entering another territory. Does being elected by a majority indeed give you the right to crush the protests if necessary to maintain law and order? If we agree with this, then we'll have a hard time trying to see how Ahmedinejad did anything wrong in 2009, when he did win the elections (regardless of what you say about the system in Iran, people were protesting because they wanted somebody else to win, when in fact Ahmedinejad was the winner, and had the majority on his side).

The situations aren't comparable because the Iranian elections were widely considered to be suspiciously stacked in favor of candidates who were favored by Iran's religious dictator, and thus did not garner the sort of International credibility that elections in other countries usually do. Even in the run up to the next elections, the religious hierarchy are approving and disapproving who gets to run. Based on that alone, Turkey and Iran are not good cases to compare to one another, in fact they are probably on opposite ends of the spectrum. Does being legitimately elected by a majority give you the right to maintain law and order ? Yes it does. Does being illegitimately elected like Saddam, Assad, or Mubarak give you a right to crack down on descent ? No it doesn't, because you have no public mandate to govern.

 

[Danny1982]

Yes it does, because even if you're in the minority, you have the right to mobilize politically to affect change through the system which the majority have decided is the correct system for the country.

But it does not affect much how I feel on the streets, and what reaction would I show on the streets to being crushed by the government.

The situations aren't comparable because the Iranian elections were widely considered to be suspiciously stacked in favor of candidates who were favored by Iran's religious dictator, and thus did not garner the sort of International credibility that elections in other countries usually do. Even in the run up to the next elections, the religious hierarchy are approving and disapproving who gets to run. Based on that alone, Turkey and Iran are not good cases to compare to one another, in fact they are probably on opposite ends of the spectrum. Does being legitimately elected by a majority give you the right to maintain law and order ? Yes it does. Does being illegitimately elected like Saddam, Assad, or Mubarak give you a right to crack down on descent ? No it doesn't, because you have no public mandate to govern.

What if the majority of the people were supporting the system they have now in Iran? What's important is that nobody forced the people in Iran to go out and choose. Nobody forced them to choose a specific candidate. They were free to show up or not in the elections, and they turned out in large numbers (more than 50% turnout) and in the end the winner was decided by the majority of votes. You can't say it's "not a democracy" just because they don't allow some people to run. In Germany they don't allow a Nazi party to run either. So? In the US they practically don't allow anybody else to run (outside the two big parties), as there is no practical way anybody can have a chance from a party other than the republicans and democrats, so it's only about the same two parties running every year. But either way it doesn't matter. Because the people in all those countries get to choose the winner in the end, freely.

The problem with dictatorships is that they don't run real elections. They force the people to go out, and force them to vote for the dictator, which results sometimes in absurd numbers, like Saddam winning by 99.96% of the votes!

If the Iranians don't like the current system, they should just stay home during the elections. They have the freedom to discredit the whole election process peacefully that way. In dictatorships, people don't have that option.

 

[Raoul]

But it does not affect much how I feel on the streets, and what reaction would I show on the streets to being crushed by the government.




What if the majority of the people were supporting the system they have now in Iran? What's important is that nobody forced the people in Iran to go out and choose. Nobody forced them to choose a specific candidate. They were free to show up or not in the elections, and they turned out in large numbers (more than 50% turnout) and in the end the winner was decided by the majority of votes. You can't say it's "not a democracy" just because they don't allow some people to run. In Germany they don't allow a Nazi party to run either. So? In the US they practically don't allow anybody else to run (outside the two big parties), as there is no practical way anybody can have a chance from a party other than the republicans and democrats, so it's only about the same two parties running every year. But either way it doesn't matter. Because the people in all those countries get to choose the winner in the end, freely.

The problem with dictatorships is that they don't run real elections. They force the people to go out, and force them to vote for the dictator, which results sometimes in absurd numbers, like Saddam winning by 99.96% of the votes!

If the Iranians don't like the current system, they should just stay home during the elections. They have the freedom to discredit the whole election process peacefully that way. In dictatorships, people don't have that option.

Actually the Iranians are ostisibly in the same situation as the Russians are right now. The system is rigged to discredit pluralistic governance by way of intitimdation, crack downs on individual freedoms, and and so on. Therefore its meaningless whether the citizens stay home or turn out to vote. This of course has nothing to do with Turkey, which is in a different category of governance and institutional capacity.

 

[Danny1982]

Actually the Iranians are ostisibly in the same situation as the Russians are right now. The system is rigged to discredit pluralistic governance by way of intitimdation, crack downs on individual freedoms, and and so on. Therefore its meaningless whether the citizens stay home or turn out to vote. This of course has nothing to do with Turkey, which is in a different category of governance and institutional capacity.

I disagree, when the majority of the population turn out voluntarily in the elections, it means that they believe in those elections regardless of what you say about them.

 

[Raoul]

I disagree, when the majority of the population turn out voluntarily in the elections, it means that they believe in those elections regardless of what you say about them.

That's quite an assumption. How do you know that with absolute certainty ?

 

[Danny1982]

That's quite an assumption. How do you know that with absolute certainty ?

Feel free to challenge me.

 

[nimic]

He was challenging you. That was the challenge. Now it is up to you to justify your controversial statement.

 

[Danny1982]

He was challenging you. That was the challenge. Now it is up to you to justify your controversial statement.

He didn't challenge me. He just asked if I had a proof. A challenge would be a statement saying: "The Iranian government is actually forcing people to go to the elections".

 

[Raoul]

He didn't challenge me. He just asked if I had a proof. A challenge would be a statement saying: "The Iranian government is actually forcing people to go to the elections".

Actually I did. When you make a sweeping statement like that you should be able to back it up.

 

[Danny1982]

Actually I did. When you make a sweeping statement like that you should be able to back it up.

Nope, this is not how it works.

In a statement that denies something (the government forcing people to go to the elections) you actually don't have to provide a proof, until somebody brings a proof to the table that proves the opposite.

Hence my statement, feel free to challenge me.

 

[Raoul]

Nope, this is not how it works.

In a statement that denies something (the government forcing people to go to the elections) you actually don't have to provide a proof, until somebody brings a proof to the table that proves the opposite.

Hence my statement, feel free to challenge me.

You're wumming now.

 

[nimic]

Nope, this is not how it works.

In a statement that denies something (the government forcing people to go to the elections) you actually don't have to provide a proof, until somebody brings a proof to the table that proves the opposite.

Hence my statement, feel free to challenge me.

What? No, that's not right. You made a sweeping statement, and if you are unable to back it up, which you have been so far, that statement can be summarily dismissed.

Besides, you picked a strange place to take your stand. It's not exactly a secret that all of the candidates are thoroughly vetted by the religious leadership. Some of them are "reformers", but they still won't have the power to reform anything of note. Perhaps if several reformers are elected in a row, the entire political culture of Iran could begin to change.

 

[Danny1982]

You're wumming now.

It's basic logic actually.

If everybody has to provide a proof that he didn't commit murder to be let free, then everybody would be convicted with murder.

 

[Danny1982]

What? No, that's not right. You made a sweeping statement, and if you are unable to back it up, which you have been so far, that statement can be summarily dismissed.

So if you make a statement that you didn't kill John. Do you have to provide the proof that you didn't kill him, or do I have to provide the proof that you did?

 

[Raoul]

Drop it Danny.

 

[africanspur]

If you claim that niMic killed John then yes you would have to provide the evidence.

 

[Danny1982]

If you claim that niMic killed John then yes you would have to provide the evidence.

That's the point. I'm saying there are no reports or proofs that suggest that the Iranian government did actually force the people to go out and vote. That's why I made my statement that they didn't force the people to go out and vote, and asked anybody who disagrees with me to show me a proof that they did.

 

[Neutral]

I am bit surprised the AK Party haven't staged mass counter rallies - especially after say the Friday Jummah prayers. Unless of course, they've decided, they don't want to directly confront this and continue to hope, it'll all just go away.

 

[nimic]

That's the point. I'm saying there are no reports or proofs that suggest that the Iranian government did actually force the people to go out and vote. That's why I made my statement that they didn't force the people to go out and vote, and asked anybody who disagrees with me to show me a proof that they did.

But, see, that's not what Raoul was "challenging" you on. Now you're back to fighting straw men. He was challenging your assertion that "when the majority of the population turn out voluntarily in the elections, it means that they believe in those elections". That is most certainly a statement that requires justification.

 

[Danny1982]

But, see, that's not what Raoul was "challenging" you on. Now you're back to fighting straw men. He was challenging your assertion that "when the majority of the population turn out voluntarily in the elections, it means that they believe in those elections". That is most certainly a statement that requires justification.

Well, that's pretty much the most-widely used measure for the legitimacy of a free election. When people vote for X it means that they agree with X (on most issues at least). People who vote for Y agree with Y, and people who don't feel represented in the elections or are against it do not vote. This option is not available for people living in countries with real dictatorships.

I'm not saying here that Iran is the perfect democracy by the way, as I mentioned earlier. And I can't even say that about the US either, even though theoretically, probably, it is allowed for everybody to run in the elections in the US, the capitalist nature of the country makes it pretty impossible for anybody to run and have a real chance outside the 2 big parties, so it's basically either this or that for the Americans (which is why IMO many countries in Europe are more of a democracy than the US in that regard, because it's easier for you to start your own party and have a real chance in the elections in those countries).

But, regardless of the details, as long as people are turning out in free elections, that does show support for the elections, and even the whole system, and we have to acknowledge that.. If the Iranians are really fed up with the whole system, then they still have the option of not going out and voting. There is no need for 100% of people to boycott the elections, even if the turnout drops below 30% for example it will put the Iranian regime in a pretty awkward position. But as long as there is a good turnout in the elections, we can't really say that Iran is a dictatorship, even if we don't like the way it's run, or the beliefs of the people running it..

 

[Raoul]

Except that candidates are chosen by a religious dictator.

 

[Saliph]

Well, that's pretty much the most-widely used measure for the legitimacy of a free election. When people vote for X it means that they agree with X (on most issues at least). People who vote for Y agree with Y, and people who don't feel represented in the elections or are against it do not vote. This option is not available for people living in countries with real dictatorships.

I'm not saying here that Iran is the perfect democracy by the way, as I mentioned earlier. And I can't even say that about the US either, even though theoretically, probably, it is allowed for everybody to run in the elections in the US, the capitalist nature of the country makes it pretty impossible for anybody to run and have a real chance outside the 2 big parties, so it's basically either this or that for the Americans (which is why IMO many countries in Europe are more of a democracy than the US in that regard, because it's easier for you to start your own party and have a real chance in the elections in those countries).

But, regardless of the details, as long as people are turning out in free elections, that does show support for the elections, and even the whole system, and we have to acknowledge that.. If the Iranians are really fed up with the whole system, then they still have the option of not going out and voting. There is no need for 100% of people to boycott the elections, even if the turnout drops below 30% for example it will put the Iranian regime in a pretty awkward position. But as long as there is a good turnout in the elections, we can't really say that Iran is a dictatorship, even if we don't like the way it's run, or the beliefs of the people running it..

It's got more to do with the political system itself. Presidential and single-winner systems tend to be two-party systems.

Yes, we can say that Iran is a dictatorship/theocracy/authoritarian regime. I doubt you'll find any political scientists that would call it a democracy. It's consistently one of the lowest ranked countries on democracy indexes.

 

[Danny1982]

Yes, we can say that Iran is a dictatorship/theocracy/authoritarian regime.

Is Iran the same as Saudia Arabia?

 

[JakeC]

Is Iran the same as Saudia Arabia?

Saudi Arabia is a monarchy.

 

[Danny1982]

Except that candidates are chosen by a religious dictator.

They don't get chosen. They got excluded when they didn't accept the results of the elections and asked the people to take the streets to undermine the whole process. Reformists have been allowed to run for the Iranian elections, and they actually won a couple of times.

 

[Danny1982]

Saudi Arabia is a monarchy.

On the democracy/dictatorship scale...

 

[JakeC]

On the democracy/dictatorship scale...

Sorry. Saudi Arabia don't even claim to be democratic, the leaders aren't voted in by the people so I'd consider Abdullah as a dictator.

Whilst UK have a Queen, she's not the head of Government. Only the head of state, which contrasts with Saudi Arabias authoritarian monarchy.

Wikipedias democracy scale for the middle east

 

[Raoul]

They don't get chosen. They got excluded when they didn't accept the results of the elections and asked the people to take the streets to undermine the whole process. Reformists have been allowed to run for the Iranian elections, and they actually won a couple of times.

Have a look at the recent candidates and tell me how politically diverse they are. They are effectively chosen by way of Iran's religious dictator having veto over candidates he doesn't deem nutterish enough.

 

[Kaos]

Iran and Saudi Arabia are both autocratic regimes but no where near the same level.

Saudi Arabia is by far the most autocratic, bigoted state in the region. Iran looks like a democratic, secular haven by comparison.

 

[Raoul]

Iran and Saudi Arabia are both autocratic regimes but no where near the same level.

Saudi Arabia is by far the most autocratic, bigoted state in the region. Iran looks like a democratic, secular haven by comparison.

I'd say they're both comparably draconian, the only exception being that you're Shi'a.

 

[moses]

It's basic logic actually.

If everybody has to provide a proof that he didn't commit murder to be let free, then everybody would be convicted with murder.

Except those who had proof. Now that's basic logic.

 

[Kaos]

I'd say they're both comparably draconian, the only exception being that you're Shi'a.

I'm atheist actually.

Its pretty obvious the Saudi Kingdom is the more draconian state. At least in Iran women don't get beaten halfway to death for exposing some flesh or having the audacity to drive.

 

[africanspur]

Saudi Arabia is significantly worse than any other country in the region.

 

[nimic]

With the possible exception of somewhere like Bahrain, I tend to agree.

 

[holyland red]

Wikipedias democracy scale for the middle east

What on earth has happened to this place that people on here pick their side in ME exchanges according to a democracy scale, without inverting the index first?

 

[JakeC]

Except those who had proof. Now that's basic logic.

 

[Dante]

I'm atheist actually.

Its pretty obvious the Saudi Kingdom is the more draconian state. At least in Iran women don't get beaten halfway to death for exposing some flesh or having the audacity to drive.

Not to mention the fact that 60% of university students there are female. It's also miles and miles more democratic at a civil level (as long as you don't criticise the Ayatollahs, which is obviously something they need to overcome). The political discourse has its constraints but it's there. That's not something you can say about Saudi Arabia.

 

[holyland red]

Syria have had elections too. Does that make it any more democratic than Saudi Arabia too? I'm quite sure Saudis are allowed throwing envelopes into empty boxes.