Power not vested in Turkish leaders since the sultans
Foreign Policy on the death of modern Turkey:
The new country called Turkey, quite unlike the Ottoman Empire, was structured along modern lines. It was to be administered by executive and legislative branches, as well as a Council of Ministers composed of elected representatives of the parliament. What had once been the authority of the sultan, who ruled alone with political and ecclesiastic legitimacy, was placed in the hands of legislators who represented the sovereignty of the people.
The yes vote represents a rejection of all that.
The AKP and supporters of the “yes” vote argue that the criticism of the constitutional amendments was unfair. They point out that the changes do not undermine a popularly elected parliament and president as well as an independent (at least formally) judiciary. This is all true, but it is also an exceedingly narrow description of the political system that Erdogan envisions. Rather, the powers that would be afforded to the executive presidency are vast, including the ability to appoint judges without input from parliament, issue decrees with the force of law, and dissolve parliament. The president would also have the sole prerogative over all senior appointments in the bureaucracy and exercise exclusive control of the armed forces. The amendments obviate the need for the post of prime minister, which would be abolished. The Grand National Assembly does retain some oversight and legislative powers, but if the president and the majority are from the same political party, the power of the presidency will be unconstrained. With massive imbalances and virtually no checks on the head of state, who will now also be the head of government, the constitutional amendments render the Law on Fundamental Organization and all subsequent efforts to emulate the organizational principles of a modern state moot. It turns out that Erdogan, who would wield power not vested in Turkish leaders since the sultans, is actually a neo-Ottoman.
Which is not surprising. Authoritarianisms go together: theocracy and authoritarian government make a natural pairing. It doesn’t always work that way, of course – there have been plenty of secular authoritarians. But the idea behind both is the same: one all-powerful boss is better than a diverse crowd of voices arguing.
Sounds like the situation in the US right now, as well.
While this is a tremendous setback for Turkish democracy, the headline is a bit of hyperbole.
The Republic of Turkey was a one party state for its first two decades, and there were at least three coups by the military in the following decades.
The history is more complicated than this simple “Not since the Caliphate” formulation, iMHO.
Well, scratch Turkey. That leaves Indonesia as probably the world’s only majority-Muslim democracy, temporarily perhaps.
I wonder if Erdogan has fantasies in regard to recreating the Ottoman Empire. Erdogan, the new Caliph, leader of the faithful and the sword of the Prophet. That would scare the bejeezus out of the Eastern Europeans who have long memories.