Erdoğan claims that lowering interest rates to zero or near zero is more in line with Islamic principles, which may be true (according to interpretation of Islamic principles, I assume). This is a bold move that reinforces what was already suspected: he is continuing to solidify his power by appealing to Islamic sympathies.
During the recent coup calls to resist the belligerents were broadcast over mosque loudspeakers and throats were being slit in the street. Praises to Allah could be heard.
Ataturk strengthened Turkey by moving it away from the regional Islamic influences. He changed the alphabet and implemented laws to guide Turkey toward a secular culture. Islam was acceptable (as Turkey was attempting to be a "free" republic), but not compulsory.
If Erdoğan continues to mold Turkey's future Turkey will soon look more like Syria in terms of culture, and less like Western Europe, which it recently did.
> Islam was acceptable (as Turkey was attempting to be a "free" republic), but not compulsory.
Until Erdogan overturned it, there was a ban on women wearing hijab (the head covering , that the vast majority of Muslims consider a basic tenet of their religion) in universities in Turkey. I leave the judgment to you, but personally I wouldn't consider asking millions of people to choose between adhering to their religion and getting a higher education to be treating their religion as "acceptable, just not compulsary".
I would feel extremely comfortable banning those head coverings from all universities, if not all public venues. Religious vestment simply has no place outside of ritual occasions. But then again, I'm from the country Atatürk took after. From our point of view, allowing religion to exist is treating it with tolerance. Acknowledging religion as something that deserves any sort of deference by the State isn't acceptable. And I say that as an otherwise religious person myself (don't take it as the stance of some rabid atheist).
> I would feel extremely comfortable banning those head coverings from all universities, if not all public venues...From our point of view, allowing religion to exist is treating it with tolerance.
If saying "either stop adhering to your religion or you cannot go to university/exist in public" is tolerance, what is intolerance? Is everything short of prison, internment camps, torture, and execution tolerance in your point of view?
Also, if a government tells religious people "we are going to make your life very difficult, but you should really be thankful to us that we are not outright destroying you", they should not be surprised when they don't end up being thankful and instead vote for the other guy. That's one of the reasons Erdogan is now in power.
The assumption that asking for the removal of what is essentially discriminatory somptuary laws amounts to asking for apostasy is your own. Internal religious regulations have no bearing on the law and whether or not they're essential to religious practice is of no consequence to civil society. Keep in mind I'm referring to a system where universities are public institutions, emanations of the State, rather than private foundations as is usually the case in the US.
Why would your secularism turn you into fashion police?
Why cannot a person wear a headscarf (it does not obscure their mouth or eyes so does not inhibit communication) if they want to? For what ever private reason they feel they want to?
I know people who wear them for non-religious reasons. Will they be exempt from your rules about fashion?
People get told all the time that what they wear is unacceptable by others in power, and it is an abuse of power. This is particularly true for women and a "headscarf" ban another example of blatant misogyny.
What is particularly offensive is it is said it is one for "liberating" those women. Often (usually not always) it is non Islamic people lecturing Islamists.
The fight against misogyny in Islam is a fight for Islamic women. When there is a cry from Islamic women for non-Islamists to set fashion laws for Islamic women to obey (and not just the odd lone voice) then maybe, possible you might have a point. Is that ever going to happen?
I do not think that Islamic women need misogynist, sexist, Islamophobic, theophobic, bigoted, and patronising rules and punishment. To liberate them, no less! Perhaps they need the opposite
This kind of nationalism is way more "religious" than wanting to wear a headscarf. Between one person who wants to dress in a certain way and another person who wants to control how a large number of other people dress because they perceive it as a threat to their ideology, who is more extreme?
> Religious vestment simply has no place outside of ritual occasions.
Where would you draw the line between religious and cultural? I assume you would have no problem with people wearing traditional clothes? What about traditional amish clothing? Would a buddhist be allowed to wear a rakusu? Could a Scandinavian raise a maypole even though it was a design that was meant to christianize a previously pagan religion but is now not seen as religious? Would file-sharing not be allowed since kopimism is an official religion in some countries? Would symbols not originally rooted in religion but later adopted by them be allowed?
I'd be really interested to know where you draw the line.
There are no countries that allow people to dress how they please. There is no way that the state letting people walk around, say, naked, in the univeristies they operate _wouldn't_ be considered as deferring to the views of a particular nudist subculture.
The state in question has "not showing this kind of deference toward religions" as one of its founding principles: in fact, as founding principle number one. It states that certain personal lifestyle choices, such as religion, do not belong the public sphere. In the public sphere each individual should appear as a simple citizen, and not seek to distinguish thenselves from other citizens along religious lines.
>> Acknowledging religion as something that deserves any sort of deference by the State isn't acceptable.
What next, enforce a communist uniform on everyone and strictly control their freedom to express their thoughts? Do you realise how ludicrous you sound? I note you're French and your religious expressions laws are not made in the name of secularism, rather specifically intended to discriminate against a sizeable minority.
Presumably your also include a Christian Cross necklace? What about a symmetric cross that's visibly a cross but not a traditional cross? A cross at an angle?
You're entitled to express your point of view, of course, but please be more convincing and informed than a nationalistically ideological charlatan (how ironic).
>What next, enforce a communist uniform on everyone and strictly control their freedom to express their thoughts? Do you realise how ludicrous you sound?
You're making leaps in logic that don't make sense to me. You're the one being ludicrous, as far as I can tell.
>I note you're French and your religious expressions laws are not made in the name of secularism, rather specifically intended to discriminate against a sizeable minority.
At the time those laws were made, the absolute majority of the country was made of church-going Catholics. That at the present day they're mostly invoked in relation to a religious minority doesn't make any difference.
> Presumably your also include a Christian Cross necklace?
Sure.
> What about a symmetric cross that's visibly a cross but not a traditional cross? A cross at an angle?
Is it a token of belonging to a religious organization ? If so, keep it private. I don't see what's complex about that.
> You're entitled to express your point of view, of course, but please be more convincing and informed than a nationalistically ideological charlatan (how ironic).
I'm informed about the political and religious history of my own country, and as such transversely familiar with the framework Atatürk tried to put in place in Turkey. I'm less familiar with the ways it started breaking down. And frankly, you're not in any position to demand better argumentation on my part if you're not doing as much yourself.
> I would feel extremely comfortable banning those head coverings from all universities, if not all public venues.
Good thing you're not in a position to make such a call then.
> Religious vestment simply has no place outside of ritual occasions
The Hijab is not merely a "religious vestment" as the seculars and atheists foolishly seem to think. It's a way of life, a way of showing purity and piety.
> Acknowledging religion as something that deserves any sort of deference by the State isn't acceptable. And I say that as an otherwise religious person myself (don't take it as the stance of some rabid atheist).
I'm going to assume you're a Christian, and I'm not surprised, your religion has been relegated to the sidelines when it comes to anything relevant in terms of running society. And they convinced you to keep it that way.
Let me ask you this: do you have an issue with homosexuals and transexuals showing their propaganda in public?
I don't disagree with you but I'd like to provide some context for how things have shifted, for others reading this thread. The current headscarf culture in Turkey, as I see it.
The head coverings (various kinds) are associated with modesty. They are often fashionable modesty (?!) in Turkey now, as Armani and others advertise cutting-edge, expensive headscarfs. Some women are using them as a status symbol. They can also be used to signal pro-Erdoğan, pro-Islamist (in a government sense) sentiments.
Now, a woman not wearing a head covering (very many do not) may be called a slut by women wearing them. Rare perahps, but these things happen. There is often a palpable tension between the groups of women who wear them, and the groups of women who do not. It is as I said often a political symbol.
Yep. A lot of people seem to - willingly or unwillingly - ignore the dark side of Ataturk’s revolution. The fact of the matter is that nothing in the real world is ever as rosy as you would like it to be.
It seems to me that headscarf-wearing is quite politicised in many countries and I think there is a risk of applying the standards of one’s own political group in one’s own country to another place where the connotations are different.
For example in developed English-speaking countries, allowing headscarves is seen as promoting diversity, inclusiveness and tolerance. Wanting to restrict this is generally considered to be somewhere between right-wing and bigoted. In France, views tend to be different. In Iran, where hair coverings are mandatory for women, the connotations are different and they can be symbols of an authoritarian or oppressive government (to certain people at least) instead.
In this case, as well as the culture in Turkey, one must consider:
- changing attitudes to who attends university since the old rules were introduced.
- changing attitudes among Muslims to headscarves since the old rules were introduced.
- changing attitudes towards secularisation (and politics in general) since the old rules were introduced.
It seems to me that most HN readers (myself included) are not in a good position to pass judgement and that this comment benefits from the liberal anglosphere view aligning with its arguments. But I don’t know how that fits in with the way Turks think or used to think.
lol this is so patently false. in a family very close to me, the husband would very much like his wife to wear not hijab and his wife tells him to mind his own business. both are muslim.
Tell it to this girl [1], or this [2] girl. You won't be able to tell it to this [3] girl, because she killed herself, rather than submitting to this barbarity.
If you have some anecdotal example of a person who does this willingly (likely because of systemic multigenerational indoctrination), it does not prove that many other women are not willing to submit to this requirement, yet, are powerless to resist it without having to face severe consequences.
The point is that wearing hijab is coercion. It is not a 'free choice'. Nobody chooses to be a sub-human, unless forced or brain-washed since early childhood.
Of course, male from Saudi Arabia claims that this problem is imaginary. What a surprise. /s
Just because you decided to consider this problem imaginary, it does not mean that this problem does not exist in the real world, bringing suffering to millions of disenfranchised women.
Why did you use the word “propaganda”? Why not “education”?
Regardless of the time period, I would simply propose focusing on educating current and future generations that men and women have equal rights.
If you dig into history a bit, you’ll find that state-sponsored persecution - ethnic, religious, or otherwise - is almost always guaranteed to backfire in the long run.
I definitely simplified things a bit, but you can educate people on how to conduct themselves over the long term through various mechanisms. Many countries used this approach effectively to solve actual societal issues; however, the hijab is not a societal issue in and of itself.
Do you also apply that logic to Sikh turbans (dastar)? In other words, do you believe that forbidding Sikhs from covering their hair is not religious persecution? How do you think Sikhs would react to that?
Edit: Or wait, I might have misunderstood: do you actually think that a hijab is equivalent to a generic headscarf? If so, it is not - please read a bit about it before commenting further.
I am with you, not against you. Turbans are fine by me. Of course banning them is religious persecution (there is an interesting intersection with motor cycle helmet laws) I do not want to wear one (but I have been known to wear a headscarf) There is no justification for fashion law.
The niqāb is problematic. I find it difficult to talk with some one when I cannot see their face. (Then there was Covid....). I am not sure if that is a personal quirk or a basis for a justifiable fashion law!
And of course a hijab is a headscarf. Not just a head scarf, like a turban is a hat, not just a hat. Why would we want to ban either?
It has nothing to do with religious beliefs, its all about gathering capital on his side. He is just abusing peoples' religious beliefs. Everybody knows the new savings scheme he introduced is essentially increasing interest rates.
Contrary to popular belief, I do not think that Erdogan will continue to mold Turkey's future. So far Turkey always had 40-50% opposition which could not unit, but now they are all united and next time it is certainly going to tip the scale in the right way. He will do everything to delay the elections or call them at the right time -like now ?- but his plans don't always work out -not far, look to recent Istanbul elections he lost.
> Everybody knows the new savings scheme he introduced is essentially increasing interest rates.
This is not true. Raising interest rates would mean raising the cost of funding for the banking system. Under the new saving scheme, since the Treasury pays depositors the extra yield, the cost for banks remains unchanged. As does the marginal cost of borrowing from the central bank.
The new saving scheme is a free dollar call sold by the country's Treasury to depositors. And it will pay it out by printing money.
Something it cannot do without increasing its own borrowing costs, and reducing the import purchasing power of its currency. This has been tried and doesn't work: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Wednesday
The ruling regime/Edrogan are not interested in the general wellbeing of the country, only of looting it.
I've come to realize that there are a significant number of politicians who will happily oversee 100 units of 'destruction' if it means they are able to generate 1 unit of personal profit in the process. When applied to an entire nation state, the results are significant.
Look at the corrupt wealth generated by the current US Speaker of the House, for example.
Borrowing costs increased independently of the new savings product. They were rising well before it was announced and increased further because the market priced in a higher level of inflation following the sharp depreciation.
The higher rate on deposits that the new saving scheme offers doesn't increase funding costs for banks in anyway. The Treasury literally pays the depositors the extra yield, not the banks.
And, yes I know interest on loans increased substantially but that has nothing to do with the new saving product and everything to do with the meltdown in the lira that preceded.
Edit: And in any case why would banks raise loan rates if they don't have to bear the cost of the new product?
You are asking the correct question, it does not matter if the cost is financed by banks or public. The cost of borrowing increased substantially, even though exchange rate decreased in the last one week.
Access to TL got harder by the actions of the government. This is why interest rates increased.
Of course it matters. If banks bare the cost, they have to pass it on to their customers by raising rates. If the public pays for it, the government and central bank will end up printing money --one way or another -- to pay depositors.
And all this mind you only IF people move a substantial amount of their lira deposits to the new product AND the lira depreciates more than the rate on the underlying lira deposit account (only then are savers eligible for the kicker rate).
So far, savers have moved around 10b liras into this product, out of a total 4.3 trillion lira of deposits.
You're telling me banks raised rates because of that marginal shift? And even though, I repeat, they don't have to pay for it?
I am saying that the government raised interest rates substantially, one way or the other. It used couple of tools to do it, one of them is promising expected dollar appreciation as interest. (Tl is expected to depreciate at least at the rate of inflation, which substantially higher then central banks overnight rate, hence they have increased interest)
He lost all three of the biggest cities of Istanbul, Ankara and Izmir. Yet his coalition actually increased their total votes in the municipal elections by getting more votes in other cities.
Syria was a prosperous and deeply secular country, with many cultural sites dating back to the ancient world. At least it was until imported wahabbi terrorists from you know where started to split the country up, turning parts of it into a Islamic State caliphate.
Today, Syria is being plundered by the same countries that helped the terrorists sell the stolen oil. We all know which country smuggled truckloads worth of oil then, and which country does the same now.
Comparing Turkey's and Syria's cultures is like comparing an ugly frog to a beautiful marmaid.
Turkey is at least as much at fault as Saudi Arabia. They literally straight up pay salaries to wahabbi terrorists. The US also financed a lot of them.
Northeastern Syria (major agriculture/oil region) has been actively occupied by USA for the better part of a decade. Turkey occupies Northwestern Syria (Idlib) along with US-backed HTS.
Arguably the only reason Syria didn't collapse like Libya/Iraq is because Russia was there to balance against US interests.
The Syrian conflict, though deliberately obfuscated, was probably primarily a conflict between Russia-backed Iran and US-backed Saudi Arabia. Wahabism is an arm of the latter.
I was thinking that it was engineered because Assad refused to allow Qatar South Par gas pipelines from criss crossing his country on its way to Europe. The arreas occupied by ISIS terror group in Iraq and Syria were actually areas meant for South Par gas pipelines. South Par gas would have freed Europe from Russia energy dependency.
Yes, this is the real reason for the war. Had Assad accepted the proposal, he would be hailed in the MS media as a hero and a great leader who turned his country into a desert oasis.
Of course, this would have isolated and aggrovated Russia further, and Assad knew that. Nevermind that Syria is within range of Russia's missiles. He also knew what became of Sadam Housein (once an ally to the US) once he was of no use to the West.
In any case, causing a civil war inside a country just to punish a leader for making calculated, reasonable choice is criminal and evil.
It's a different axis. The Turks are fighting the Sauds for influence in the Islamic world, while the Sauds are fighting the Iranians in their imagined Shia vs Sunni conflict.
Not necessarily Saudis but the so called "rebels". Turkey openly aided ISIS and other violent rebels in the region. I can tell you Turkey did not do this alone as a Nato member.
Erdoğan is a Ottoman and not an Islamic leader. He is using Islam to reach his goals but he is not married to it. He'll move away from Islam as soon as it no longer serves his purposes.
Islam is flexible. He'll bullshit his way out of it. Seen it first hand. Also most of his target countries for influence are already Muslim Sunni. So that should work out.
Not at all. Ottoman Sultans led a multicultural empire. There is now not a single neighbour of turkey that has good relations with them. Erdogan is an opportunist populist, not a great leader, sadly for turks
Basically he still believes in the Ottoman empire and that his country should turn into a super-power that controls the Mediterranean. Many Turks share this idea, too.
Even a fictional character, Paul Atriades, knows that religious zeal is a beast that cannot be contained. I am more inclined to believe that as a skilled politician erdogan should be well versed in history and politics to see that danger. And I believe that he indeed is a believer of Islamic religion.
Many religions have laws about interest and usury. Catholics were unable to lend with interest between each other for a very long time. I suppose it's not a stretch to say if a person can't charge interest the government shouldn't be doing it either.
One big concern is that Erdoğan will likely hold on to power however he can. He's already circumvented the constitution (and changed electoral law). I believe he will fight to maintain his reign if necessary. He has about 50% of the country behind him, and as far as I can tell the allegiance is based on religious principles, which makes it a strong allegiance indeed.
On the other hand, the Turkish electoral system can fail even more bizarrely than a simple single-member constituency FPTP system—in 2002, only the CHP and AKP cleared the 10% threshold, so the AKP had ⅔ of the votes.
However, at the moment, the president is directly elected, so anything <50% wouldn’t suffice. (How those votes are obtained, of course, is another matter.)
That's actual voters of course, a subset of how many people support a candidate or President in the US. The parent has no idea how many people support Erdogan (the claimed 50%), nobody does. It's just a guess in the wind (if it's 42% that's a massive difference from 54%, as to whether Erdogan remains standing). Like trying to guess how many Russians really support Putin's dictatorship. Getting honest answers on such questions is quite difficult, as is accurately polling in nations the size and complexity of eg the US, Russia or Turkey.
If you believe in democracy you would celebrate the failure of a coup. Even if you hate the surviving leader, you ought to prefer defeating him within the frameworks of democracy.
You seem to really dislike Muslim culture. If the people of Turkey want their culture to closer to that of Syria instead of Germany, what’s the problem?
>"If you believe in democracy you would celebrate the failure of a coup. Even if you hate the surviving leader, you ought to prefer defeating him within the frameworks of democracy."
You are supposing that the once freely-elected leader will permit a reversion to 'free' democracy. In fact, rigged elections form the basis of stable autocracies. Outright juntas and dictatorships are actually more likely to transition to 'free' democracies.[1]
> Even if you hate the surviving leader, you ought to prefer defeating him within the frameworks of democracy.
Not in this case. The military (with its coups) was often the force that kept the turkish democracy alive, or else it would have fallen to many more dictators
The problem is that people suffer the transition's consequences.
The current state of affairs has driven a rather large part of the country's population, who share Western ideals and want to pursue them for their nation, prefer a coup over whatever this ongoing messy loss of wealth and human capital is (certainly not 'democracy,' though). That should be telling, but it's hard to have Westerners empathise, I guess?
Westerners think that their culture is the greatest of all time, how could you not accept it? They are even exporting it together with their bombs and missiles in case you don't comply /s
But seriously, if their "culture" consists of gender theories, Holywood movies, superhero novels and the like, they can keep their culture.
> If you believe in democracy you would celebrate the failure of a coup.
That depends, I suppose. Hitler was democratically elected. Hard to say what might have happened, had one of the many plans to assassinate him had worked, but I'm not sure we'd look at it retrospectively as an attack on democracy.
During the recent coup calls to resist the belligerents were broadcast over mosque loudspeakers and throats were being slit in the street. Praises to Allah could be heard.
Ataturk strengthened Turkey by moving it away from the regional Islamic influences. He changed the alphabet and implemented laws to guide Turkey toward a secular culture. Islam was acceptable (as Turkey was attempting to be a "free" republic), but not compulsory.
If Erdoğan continues to mold Turkey's future Turkey will soon look more like Syria in terms of culture, and less like Western Europe, which it recently did.