Argument: Railroading without consultation

The trigger for the rioting; construction projects building over a park and a square are a good analogy for the government as a whole. The AKP government does not care for public opinion and is happy to push through projects without reference to it. In the case of Taksim square the government did not consult about plans to bulldoze the park despite it being the site of a massacre in 1977 making it a place of historical significance. A court ruling to stop construction was also ignored. [1] It is the same with legislation, the controversial changes to alcohol laws were only proposed a month before they were passed and debate was limited to two days, [2] while some important business particularly involving day to day running of foreign and defence has very little oversight. [3]

[1] Yackley, Ayla Jean, ‘Insight: Simmering anger at Erdogan's authoritarianism boils over in Turkey’, Reuters, 2 June 2013, http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/02/us-turkey-protests-insight-idUSBRE9510DJ20130602

[2] Resneck, Jacob, ‘Anti-alcohol bill leaves many Turks dispirited’, USA Today, 29 May 2013, http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/05/28/turkey-alcohol/2366649/

[3] ‘Turkey Türkiye Büyük Millet Meclisi (T.B.M.M) (Grand National Assembly of Turkey)’, Inter-Parliamentary Union, 2009, http://www.ipu.org/parline/reports/CtrlParlementaire/2323_F.htm#conpoletr

Candidate 1: "Having one dominant party does not make the country an autocracy or prevent Turkey being a liberal democracy. There have been many countries that are considered democratic that have had single parties ruling for long periods. In the UK the Conservatives in the 1980’s and Labour in the 2000’s won three elections just as the AKP has. In Japan the LDP has only lost two elections since the start of Japan’s post World War II democratic system yet it is accepted as being a legitimate democracy. Rather than worrying about a single party dominance we should be applauding parties that are successful in putting together such a broad coalition that they can win election after election, they clearly represent most of the population which is the point of democracy."
Candidate 2: "Liberal democracy is flexible; it can incorporate secular and non-secular, different religions, cultures, or views of the role of the state. Many liberal democracies have restrictions on the sale of alcohol; some parts of the United States are entirely dry. Gender equality is more of an issue but women are allowed to vote in Turkey – which is essential to democracy. [1] Other rights however are up to individual culture to decide. Even if we don’t like a lack of gender equality in Turkey we should not consider the country not to be democratic because of it.

[1] ‘February 6, 1935 Turkey Holds First Election That Allows Women to Vote’, OUPblog, 6 February 2012, http://blog.oup.com/2012/02/turkey-women-vote/"
Candidate 3: "It is clearly too early to condemn Erdoğan’s desire to change Turkey to a presidential system. We do not yet have much idea what this actually means and there is no clear reason why this could not be a step forward. Erdoğan clearly wants a powerful presidency but there is no saying that this is what he will get once the horse trading is done and even if he does there are systems with powerful presidents that are clearly democratic such as the US and French systems. The change to a presidential system could also solve problems; it would replace a constitution that was drafted under military rule, and it would increase regional autonomy, [1] but much more importantly if done correctly it could create strong durable institutions that will ensure democratic rule far into the future. [2]

[1] ‘Presidential Dreaming’, The Economist, 16 March 2013, http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21573554-how-peace-deal-kurds-could-pave-way-new-turkish-constitution-presidential

[2] Tremblay, Pinar, ‘Will Presidential System Move Turkey Forward?’, Al Monitor, 14 April 2013, http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2013/04/turkey-erdogan-sultan-regime-transparency-elections.html"
Candidate 4: "This is one of the flaws of a parliamentary system; when a single party has a large majority, as the AKP does, they can essentially get whatever they want through parliament. This is why systems such as Britain’s have been called elective dictatorship, something which a change in the constitution could potentially solve but clearly does not preclude the country in question being considered to be a liberal democracy."
Candidate 5: "Each country should be free to decide which freedoms are important to it and fit with its own culture rather than having to fit into a western straitjacket in order to be considered ‘democratic’. It is true that press freedoms are a difficult issue but it is not the full story to simply point to the numbers of journalists in prison as the media can still be effective even when some journalists are imprisoned. The OSCE when looking at the 2011 elections said “The media landscape in Turkey is diverse and lively” for example all parties are able to purchase airtime under equal conditions. [1]

[1] Election Assessment Mission, ‘Republic of Turkey Parliamentary Elections 12 June 2011’, OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, 31 October 2011, http://www.osce.org/odihr/84588 , pp.2, 19"

This is one of the flaws of a parliamentary system; when a single party has a large majority, as the AKP does, they can essentially get whatever they want through parliament. This is why systems such as Britain’s have been called elective dictatorship, something which a change in the constitution could potentially solve but clearly does not preclude the country in question being considered to be a liberal democracy.
