Federalism ‘may be’ on 2023 agenda: Turkish PM

[Inspector Spacetime]

@Baykuş Nice read.

The part about federal though. You are comparing it to the autonomous region in Iraq. The autonomous region in Iraq has way more rights as well, with their own armed forces etc. I think I read something about that the Kurdish government has the right to to sell 12% of the oil in their region to whomever they want, but don't take my word for it, as I'm not sure.

I personally don't see this happening in a Federal Turkey. I think that stuff like that will be under the jurisdiction of the main government. But all this is just speculation on my part anyway. We need to see the plan's on how they would want to implement it, and what kind of laws will accompany it, to form a proper opinion about it.

I agree with you about that nationalism divided the Ottoman empire, but not sure in what way federalism came into play though.

And as far as I know, the majority of the Kurds in both Turkey and Iraq are Sunni. But you are making me doubt that now.

that MPs are immune to juridical charges,
that politicians can interfere with the military's duty - their fight against terrorism, for instance - whenever they want to, etc etc.

Pardon my ignorance but, what do you mean with MP's? Members of Parliament?
If that's the case, then I do agree, but to a certain extent. I mean, we don't want them taken to court for random charges. It needs to be serious charges like corruption etc. in order to be able to take them to court.

I am of the opinion that the military needs to be under civilian control. And if I remember correctly, it was one of the things that needed to happen in order for Turkey to be able to join EU.

 

[TurAr]

Very true, my friend. The reason I do this is because I don't know and can't know what's going on in Erdogan's/AKP's head; what are their limits? Because of that, I've to expect as if I had to face the worst case scenario. And AKP's previous compulsive initiatives that they failed with doesn't really help me expect something good coming out of this neither.



I hope this is the case, at least. It will give PKK a chance to choose between the hard way or the easy way, both leading to the same result at the end of the day; peace and quiet. But all the talk about federalism is what worries me, it is a temporary solution but will, IMHO, lead us to the worse - kinda like painkillers; you still bleed, and now your wound got infected by bacteria but you will feel the pain of it once you are out of painkillers, and by then it will be too late to do something about it but cut that limb off.

Very well said.

As for the talks about federalism, i'm not even taking those as serious, let alone letting them to worry me.

By the way, welcome to the forum mate

 

[Inspector Spacetime]

I'll reply your post with a quote from Martin Luther King Jr.

"A man who hasn't found something he is willing to die for is not fit to live."

I'd be glad to remove the conscription to shut the pacifist fags like you. Make the military service voluntary, I don't care. If terrorists want peace -what a contradiction- they can surrender to our armed forces. The other way around is unacceptable by me.

Nice quote by the way.

Conscription? Who said anything about that? Wow man, you truly are all over the place. You always seem to come up with irrelevant stuff in your posts. Why you got to revert to insults by the way? It just makes you look insecure about yourself and that you can't carry a discussion.

 

[Baykuş]

@Baykuş Nice read.

The part about federal though. You are comparing it to the autonomous region in Iraq. The autonomous region in Iraq has way more rights as well, with their own armed forces etc. I think I read something about that the Kurdish government has the right to to sell 12% of the oil in their region to whomever they want, but don't take my word for it, as I'm not sure.

I personally don't see this happening in a Federal Turkey. I think that stuff like that will be under the jurisdiction of the main government. But all this is just speculation on my part anyway. We need to see the plan's on how they would want to implement it, and what kind of laws will accompany it, to form a proper opinion about it. ...

Of course, but how do we know that a federal system will be enough to fed their stomach? How do we know that they won't demand even more once a federal state has paved the way for an independent state?

...
I agree with you about that nationalism divided the Ottoman empire, but not sure in what way federalism came into play though.
...

You simply intensify the differences with it. In Turkey's case, federalism will most probably be applied in such a way where demographics based on ethnicity will play a role for the borders of it. In other words, Kurds will get their share, Laz people will get theirs, etc. Of course, the name of the states might as well be "State of the Black Sea Region", "State of the Mid-Eastern Anatolia" and so on but they will still be related to the people of those regions.

...
And as far as I know, the majority of the Kurds in both Turkey and Iraq are Sunni. But you are making me doubt that now.
...

You might be right actually, but there are differences (Shia, Alevi..) and that's enough to make one worry about the eventual lack of mutual love between the groups, nowadays. My point was that it's too far stretched to expect that similar religions will be the thing that bring us together.

...
Pardon my ignorance but, what do you mean with MP's? Members of Parliament?
If that's the case, then I do agree, but to a certain extent. I mean, we don't want them taken to court for random charges. It needs to be serious charges like corruption etc. in order to be able to take them to court.
...

Yes, Members of Parliament
But what makes it OK to take us, you and me, in to court for random charges but not them? We have clearly seen that there are MPs that act less responsible than a 3-years old, driving drunk, slapping police officers(!), threatening, etc. As a MP, one should even be more careful and expect people to watch your every move. A MP should represent his people, that's what he gets paid to do. The current status makes them think that they are more powerful/authoritarian than they nearly should be.

...
I am of the opinion that the military needs to be under civilian control. And if I remember correctly, it was one of the things that needed to happen in order for Turkey to be able to join EU.

It would be wrong if it would not be so. Why worry if you have nothing to hide, right? Trust is mutual.

Very well said.

As for the talks about federalism, i'm not even taking those as serious, let alone letting them to worry me.

By the way, welcome to the forum mate

Thank you!
Maybe I'm forgetting that our media likes to exaggerate things. I hope that's the case.

 

[Inspector Spacetime]

Of course, but how do we know that a federal system will be enough to fed their stomach? How do we know that they won't demand even more once a federal state has paved the way for an independent state?

I think you and me are looking at this federalism talk from different perspectives. You seem to think that federal state is something that is being done to solve the Kurdish problem. Or maybe even think that PKK and/or BDP are demanding such a change.

I don't get this impression personally. These talks about federalism happened in the past as well. Turgut Ozal, Suleyman Demirel and even Alparslan Turkes looked at federalism in a positive way. I think the federalism talk comes from trying to make Turkey politically more efficient. Erdogan said in an interview (that I saw a couple of days ago), that what he hoped to gain with federalism was that the federal regions would be in a friendly competition with each other, and in doing so raise the overall level of politics.

Another reason I know of, that AKP wants this change is to avoid coalition governments. They said that, in Turkey's past, Turkey's politics was less efficient and the country fared the worst during coalition governments. And that they were looking for a way to change this. But I do think that you don't necessarily need a federal state in order to be able to implement such a change. It could also be done in a unitary state.

You simply intensify the differences with it. In Turkey's case, federalism will most probably be applied in such a way where demographics based on ethnicity will play a role for the borders of it. In other words, Kurds will get their share, Laz people will get theirs, etc. Of course, the name of the states might as well be "State of the Black Sea Region", "State of the Mid-Eastern Anatolia" and so on but they will still be related to the people of those regions.

I personally am not worried with this. I’m not worried that, if we were to change to such a system, that Turkey will divide. I think talks like that are more about scare tactics of the people opposing the implementation of the system. Personally, I don’t mind either system. Well, actually I am not convinced about federal system as of yet, but that is because I don’t know how it would be implemented. How it is envisioned by the one’s supporting it. Basically, I have no idea how it would or could work in Turkey, so I don’t really have an opinion about it.

I also am gonna look out for the opinions of our intellectuals in Turkey and what they think about this issue. Maybe even try to catch some debates about it on tv. They usually make good points and have better information about it.

Yes, Members of Parliament
But what makes it OK to take us, you and me, in to court for random charges but not them? We have clearly seen that there are MPs that act less responsible than a 3-years old, driving drunk, slapping police officers(!), threatening, etc. As a MP, one should even be more careful and expect people to watch your every move. A MP should represent his people, that's what he gets paid to do. The current status makes them think that they are more powerful/authoritarian than they nearly should be.

Yes, you are right. I actually didn't think of this, I was actually thinking more in the lines of their political actions (hence why I came up with the corruption example).

It would be wrong if it would not be so. Why worry if you have nothing to hide, right? Trust is mutual.

The military shouldn't be able to interfere with politics, and shouldn't be able to do as it pleases concerning military actions. At the end of the day, it's the people that elect the politicians, so the politicians need to have a say over the military and the politicians are the one's responsible if the military messes up. It's not a case about trust, but a case about civilian control.

 

[T-123456]

Lets see,
Change the constitution
Change into a Federal states
Change the Flag
Change passport
Change currency
Change the Istiklal Marsi?
Pardon all PKK members(and give them jobs)
The country formerly known as TURKISH REPUBLIK.

Feel free to add further changes you think will happen

 

[Neptune]

Lets see,
Change the constitution
Change into a Federal states
Change the Flag
Change passport
Change currency
Change the Istiklal Marsi?
Pardon all PKK members(and give them jobs)
The country formerly known as TURKISH REPUBLIK.

Feel free to add further changes you think will happen

Well said, but there's a mistake. It's not Republic Of Turkey. It's United States Of AKP!

 

[T-123456]

Well said, but there's a mistake. It's not Republic Of Turkey. It's United States Of AKP!

As you can see what i said was,
The country FORMERLY known as TURKISH REPUBLIK.
I didnt know the new name!

 

[Baykuş]

I think you and me are looking at this federalism talk from different perspectives. You seem to think that federal state is something that is being done to solve the Kurdish problem. Or maybe even think that PKK and/or BDP are demanding such a change.

I don't get this impression personally. These talks about federalism happened in the past as well. Turgut Ozal, Suleyman Demirel and even Alparslan Turkes looked at federalism in a positive way. I think the federalism talk comes from trying to make Turkey politically more efficient. Erdogan said in an interview (that I saw a couple of days ago), that what he hoped to gain with federalism was that the federal regions would be in a friendly competition with each other, and in doing so raise the overall level of politics.

Another reason I know of, that AKP wants this change is to avoid coalition governments. They said that, in Turkey's past, Turkey's politics was less efficient and the country fared the worst during coalition governments. And that they were looking for a way to change this. But I do think that you don't necessarily need a federal state in order to be able to implement such a change. It could also be done in a unitary state.

You might be right, maybe I've misunderstood the intention of all this federalism-talk from AKP. As you already pointed out, I was thinking that it had to do with the 'democratization' - aka the Kurdish problem. But then again, it's arguable if a federal system would suit our politicians better; is the system really to blame? I mean, there are alot of countries doing well with coalition governments, e.g. Sweden, Israel, Denmark, Portugal, etc. Isn't this something like blaming the wheel for not being useful for you whilst it works out great for the rest of the world? Maybe it's even too early to discuss this - what one might call rumors about a federalist system - at the moment. Perhaps we need to wait and see exactly what they actually mean by it.

I personally am not worried with this. I’m not worried that, if we were to change to such a system, that Turkey will divide. I think talks like that are more about scare tactics of the people opposing the implementation of the system. Personally, I don’t mind either system. Well, actually I am not convinced about federal system as of yet, but that is because I don’t know how it would be implemented. How it is envisioned by the one’s supporting it. Basically, I have no idea how it would or could work in Turkey, so I don’t really have an opinion about it.

I also am gonna look out for the opinions of our intellectuals in Turkey and what they think about this issue. Maybe even try to catch some debates about it on tv. They usually make good points and have better information about it.

As I already just mentioned, we should maybe wait and let their proposal get more clear and understandable.

The military shouldn't be able to interfere with politics, and shouldn't be able to do as it pleases concerning military actions. At the end of the day, it's the people that elect the politicians, so the politicians need to have a say over the military and the politicians are the one's responsible if the military messes up. It's not a case about trust, but a case about civilian control.

Though I agree with your point that the military shouldn't interfere with politics, I've yet have to underline the importance of letting the military to its job in an undisturbed matter. What we have to do here is to define things - what is the military's purpose? Well, it's to fight any threats aimed at our nation. Then, what defines what makes something a threat? In this case, it's the fact that our government has classified PKK as an illegal organisation that bear arms and conducts terrorist acts against both civilian and military targets. To get to my point; the military should keep conducting its fight against terrorism at full throttle, without being bothered by 'pauses' caused by some decisions by our government. From an outsider's point-of-view, this makes it look like that even our government is unsure about whether or not they face a threat or if it's simply something unharmful and legal. We can't call the very same fruit an apple AND a pear at the same time, it can only be either one of them. Why I even mention this is because it might be something that these peace-talks might lead us to, where the government would blindfold our military in order to meet the demands from those who sit on the other side of the table.

 

[Inspector Spacetime]

You might be right, maybe I've misunderstood the intention of all this federalism-talk from AKP. As you already pointed out, I was thinking that it had to do with the 'democratization' - aka the Kurdish problem. But then again, it's arguable if a federal system would suit our politicians better; is the system really to blame? I mean, there are alot of countries doing well with coalition governments, e.g. Sweden, Israel, Denmark, Portugal, etc. Isn't this something like blaming the wheel for not being useful for you whilst it works out great for the rest of the world? Maybe it's even too early to discuss this - what one might call rumors about a federalist system - at the moment. Perhaps we need to wait and see exactly what they actually mean by it.

I see that coalition governments can work in other countries like you mentioned (it works in Holland as well by the way), but even about those countries you can argue about it's efficiency. But Turkey is different though. Our politicians can't get along with each other, all they do is mudslinging against each other. I'm sorry to say, but that is the current level of our politicians. We also got to look at Turkey's track record and how it performed during coalition governments. And judging by this, Turkey fared the worst during such governments. These arguments aren't new either, I have been hearing about these talks about coalition governments from years before AKP came to power.

Though I agree with your point that the military shouldn't interfere with politics, I've yet have to underline the importance of letting the military to its job in an undisturbed matter. What we have to do here is to define things - what is the military's purpose? Well, it's to fight any threats aimed at our nation. Then, what defines what makes something a threat? In this case, it's the fact that our government has classified PKK as an illegal organisation that bear arms and conducts terrorist acts against both civilian and military targets. To get to my point; the military should keep conducting its fight against terrorism at full throttle, without being bothered by 'pauses' caused by some decisions by our government. From an outsider's point-of-view, this makes it look like that even our government is unsure about whether or not they face a threat or if it's simply something unharmful and legal. We can't call the very same fruit an apple AND a pear at the same time, it can only be either one of them. Why I even mention this is because it might be something that these peace-talks might lead us to, where the government would blindfold our military in order to meet the demands from those who sit on the other side of the table.

We seem to be on the same page (from what I understood at least). What I want to add to what you said is that the military and politics need to be in sync with each other. I mean for instance, if the political wing has some sort of agreement or strategy, then the military part needs to be on the same page with the political part. If the military disregards this and does what it wants to do, than it can sabotage what the political part is trying to achieve.

Also about this issue, I saw Erdogan in an interview last week (Kanal D or CNN Turk), saying that if the PKK terrorists retreat to another country, then they need to lay down their weapons first (leave it in Turkey).

Zaten silahı bıraktıkları zaman güvenlik güçlerimizin silahsız insana silah sıkması mümkün değil. Eli silahlı teröristler geçerken ateş açılmaması gibi bir yasa mümkün değil. Omzunda kanas, doçka. Güvenlik güçleri buna sessiz kalamaz, yasalara aykırı. Bu yardım ve yataklığa girer.

According to this quote, Erdogan is saying that the Turkish military can't ignore armed people because of laws. He is also against a change in the law as well, so he says that the terrorists need to lay down their weapons before making a move to leave the country.

Source for the quote:
Erdoğan: Gideceklerse silah bırakıp gitsinler
This source is also about the interview I was referring to.

 

[Baykuş]

I see that coalition governments can work in other countries like you mentioned (it works in Holland as well by the way), but even about those countries you can argue about it's efficiency. But Turkey is different though. Our politicians can't get along with each other, all they do is mudslinging against each other. I'm sorry to say, but that is the current level of our politicians. We also got to look at Turkey's track record and how it performed during coalition governments. And judging by this, Turkey fared the worst during such governments. These arguments aren't new either, I have been hearing about these talks about coalition governments from years before AKP came to power.

I absolutely agree with you on the behaviour of our politicians, but how will the implementation of a federal system change that? What needs to be done is to 'filter out' those who manage to prove themselves unable to discuss questions regarding 75 mil. people in a civilized matter, as it's the politicians that needs to grow up and not the governmental system that has to be change because of this. This can be achieved, to give an example; by simply forcing them to follow a set of rules or otherwise GT*O from the parliament or even face fines/charges/being permanently banned. This itself is a shame for our country (imagine how many hours in total has been spent in our >PARLIAMENT< - the place that should do its best in order to improve our country - on pure BS) and it's plane stupid that nothing valuable has been done to prevent it happening.

We seem to be on the same page (from what I understood at least). What I want to add to what you said is that the military and politics need to be in sync with each other. I mean for instance, if the political wing has some sort of agreement or strategy, then the military part needs to be on the same page with the political part. If the military disregards this and does what it wants to do, than it can sabotage what the political part is trying to achieve.

Also about this issue, I saw Erdogan in an interview last week (Kanal D or CNN Turk), saying that if the PKK terrorists retreat to another country, then they need to lay down their weapons first (leave it in Turkey).

According to this quote, Erdogan is saying that the Turkish military can't ignore armed people because of laws. He is also against a change in the law as well, so he says that the terrorists need to lay down their weapons before making a move to leave the country.

Source for the quote:
* I can't have hyperlinks in my posts, yet.. *
This source is also about the interview I was referring to.

Yet what the politicians tries to do, but what they might even fail with, might sabotage the progress of our military's efforts against PKK - it goes both ways, that's why they should not interfere at all, IMO. Some politicians makes me believe that they regard this conflict as if it was a game some children were playing in a kindergarten where they they can say "Hey guys, lets take a break, I've to catch my breath and drink some water, then we can continue playing again".

I've to admit that I don't know whether if the following is to blame the government, the military or both for (so anyone's input on this point would be greatly appreciated!), but they should just go all-in and clean up the mess once and for all. We got the capability and even the (rather unnecessary) green-light from 'humanitarian' organizations that can't blame us for getting rid of what, until today, has been regarded as terrorists. This should of course be done parallel to political steps to further democratize and open up our country so we can reach our optimal potential in all fields possible. AKP's basically tries to use PKK as a sewing needle to stitch itself together with the latter one's supporters.

 

[Inspector Spacetime]

I absolutely agree with you on the behaviour of our politicians, but how will the implementation of a federal system change that? What needs to be done is to 'filter out' those who manage to prove themselves unable to discuss questions regarding 75 mil. people in a civilized matter, as it's the politicians that needs to grow up and not the governmental system that has to be change because of this. This can be achieved, to give an example; by simply forcing them to follow a set of rules or otherwise GT*O from the parliament or even face fines/charges/being permanently banned. This itself is a shame for our country (imagine how many hours in total has been spent in our >PARLIAMENT< - the place that should do its best in order to improve our country - on pure BS) and it's plane stupid that nothing valuable has been done to prevent it happening.

I am not sure if what you are suggesting would actually work. In Holland for instance, the political level is pretty high and usually use solid arguments during debates. But even in a country like Holland you could discuss about the efficiency about a coalition government.

What AKP suggests to solve this is 'Baskanlik sistemi', presidential ship. You don't need to be a federal country to implement such a system. For instance, France is a unitary state which also has a presidential system. In other words, federal system is not necessary to solve this coalition issue. I gave off the impression in my previous posts, that AKP wants to implement federal system as a solution to solve this coalition thing, I was in the wrong and am sorry for this. AKP sees presidential ship as a solution for this coalition issue. And because of this they are also looking into the federal system.

Yet what the politicians tries to do, but what they might even fail with, might sabotage the progress of our military's efforts against PKK - it goes both ways, that's why they should not interfere at all, IMO. Some politicians makes me believe that they regard this conflict as if it was a game some children were playing in a kindergarten where they they can say "Hey guys, lets take a break, I've to catch my breath and drink some water, then we can continue playing again".

I've to admit that I don't know whether if the following is to blame the government, the military or both for (so anyone's input on this point would be greatly appreciated!), but they should just go all-in and clean up the mess once and for all. We got the capability and even the (rather unnecessary) green-light from 'humanitarian' organizations that can't blame us for getting rid of what, until today, has been regarded as terrorists. This should of course be done parallel to political steps to further democratize and open up our country so we can reach our optimal potential in all fields possible. AKP's basically tries to use PKK as a sewing needle to stitch itself together with the latter one's supporters.

Like you said, it can go both way's regarding whether the military is right, or the politicians. At the end of the day, it's the politicians that control the country and it is their choice whether to put the military in action or not. Politicians can call for the military to take action, but shouldn't be part of the strategic planning of a particular military action, because military tactics isn't the expertise of the politicians, it's the expertise of the military. However, they should have a common strategy in which the politicians control the political strategy, while the military controls the military strategy. So they should most definitely be in sync with each other.