From Vox: Turkey’s coup, explained in under 500 words

Can a coup defend democracy?

- Click here for the article.

On Friday afternoon, an as-yet unidentified faction of the Turkish military launched a coup attempt aimed at toppling President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s government.

The coup leaders, claiming to speak for the entire Turkish Armed Forces, said they’d done so in the name of protecting democracy — despite the fact that Erdogan and his party were democratically elected.

"Turkish Armed Forces have completely taken over the administration of the country to reinstate constitutional order, human rights and freedom," the statement said.

This may sound crazy to American ears, but it makes at least a little sense in the Turkish context. The modern Turkish Republic was founded in 1923 by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, a former military officer deeply committed to a form of democratic nationalism and hardline secularism now called Kemalism.

The Turkish military sees itself as the guardian of Kemalism, and has overthrown four Turkish governments since 1960 in the name of protecting Turkey’s democracy from chaos and Islamic influence. Each time afterwards, the military has returned the country to democracy — though in a degraded form.

Erdogan is clearly a threat to Turkish democracy and secularism. He leads the AKP, a moderate Islamist party that has "reformed" Turkish schools along Islamist lines. He’s cracked down on Turkey’s freedom of the press and pushed constitutional changes that would consolidate dangerous amounts of power in the president’s hands.

For more on Kemalism, click on the wiki.

From the Guardian: We must defend Thailand's fragile democracy – or civil war looms

As if on cue - since I've posted on the instability of democracy, and suggested students pay close attention to the framer's thoughts on the nature on democratic instability and how it ought to be contained - there's a military coup in the news.

From the Guardian:

In recent months, the F-word has been gaining currency in Thailand: observers are increasingly using "fascist" to describe the goals and methods of those determined to bring down the elected government, which is clinging to power despite a series of blows from its opponents in the courts and on the streets.

The army's declaration of martial law in the early hours of Tuesday – without consulting the government – further undermines the embattled administration and the kingdom's fragile democracy. Under the Martial Law Act of 1914, military commanders now have wide-ranging powers to detain suspects, censor the media, impose curfews and prohibit public gatherings.

Fourteen television stations have been taken off the air, and theBangkok Post reported on Wednesday that the military was "restricting comments on TV and in the print media by prohibiting remarks that could confuse society or provoke violence". There were also reports that books on Thai politics had been taken off the shelves at some shops.

This was a clearly a coup in all but name, and it was greeted with deep concern by the international community. As Brad Adams of Human Rights Watch said, "Thailand's friends in the world's capitals should make it clear that they expect this de facto coup to be reversed immediately."

The causes of the bitter conflict tearing Thailand apart are complex, and civil war remains a strong possibility. The army justified the imposition of martial law by claiming it was necessary to restore order amid heightened tensions and fears that rival groups would clash in the streets.

For the past six months, the former deputy prime minister Suthep Thaugsuban has led protests aimed at unseating the Pheu Thai government, which won a 2011 election observers said was largely free and fair.

In February, it won another election, which was boycotted by the opposition Democrat party while Suthep's thugs blocked polling stations. The inept, elitist and misnamed Democrats, led by the Eton- and Oxford-educated Abhisit Vejjajiva, appear to have given up on parliamentary democracy altogether.

Lots to unpack here - and it's worth thinking about this in terms of Kirkpatrick's essay. I'm drawn to the comment that a former official refused to accept the results of an election, which led to the instability that the military used to justify its action. I'm no expert on Thai politics, but do political participants in Thailand accept their own constitutional system? Opposition members seem to not wish to abide by electoral rules.

For background:

- Wikipedia: Coup d'eta.
- Wikipedia: Thailand.

Egyptian Parliament is dissoved by the nation's Supreme Constitutional Court

Backsliding towards tyranny? A military coup? This seems unusual to me since its ususally the executive that dissolves the legislature, but in this case tis the judiciary. Of course they may be controlled by the military, which controls the executive as well, so the distinction may mark no real difference.

Story in the NYT:

“From a democratic perspective, this is the worst possible outcome imaginable,” said Shadi Hamid, research director of the Brookings Doha Center in Qatar. “This is an all-out power grab by the military.”

The timing of the ruling seems like a transparent attempt to undermine the Islamists just two days before Mohamed Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood is set to compete in the runoff against Ahmed Shafik, a former air force general and Mr. Mubarak’s last prime minister.

If the ruling is carried out, whoever wins the presidential race would take power without the check of a sitting Parliament and could exercise significant influence over the elections to form a new one. The new president will also take office without a permanent constitution to define his powers or duties. A 100-member constitutional assembly appointed by Parliament and including dozens of lawmakers may also be dissolved. And in any event, the ruling generals are expected to issue their own interim charter during the drafting.

Electing a president without either a constitution or a parliament is like “electing an ‘emperor’ with more power than the deposed dictator. A travesty,” Mohamed ElBaradei, the Nobel Prize-winning diplomat and former presidential candidate, said in a comment online.
I hope students can place this event in historical context and understand the precise problem this event poses for Egypt's attempt to transition into democracy.

Mubarak Steps Down

And the military takes over.

I guess this is good news.

The Honduran Coup

Al Giodarno explains what coups do. They remove what he calls the five basic liberties:

1. The right to protest.
2. Freedom in one's home from unwarranted search, seizure and arrest.
3. Freedom of association.
4. Guarantees of rights of due process while under arrest.
5. Freedom of transit in the country.

Elections and Legitimacy

Elections, as we argue in 2301, are devices which among other things connect the general population with the law, thereby lending it legitimacy. But if an election seems to have been fraudulent, the opposite can occur. This is especially true if the fraud seems obvious, and a large percentage of the population agrees. The governing system then loses legitimacy, society crumbles and either government does something to reestablish legitimacy or removes the pretense and just clamps down on the population.

This may help explain the results of the recent election in Iran. Its president was reelected by a comfortable margin, a result which seems improbable based on popular opinion. Fraud is widely suspected. Protests have erupted, and some suspect a coup is in the works.

Andrew Sullivan claims that this story is only breaking because the blogosphere is pushing it, not the mainstream media. Even Twitter helped.

The Pakistan "Coup"

This doesn't fit the technical definition of a coup, though it is worth remembering that this is how Pakistani leader Pervez Mucharaff first came to power. Musharaff organized a second coup over the weekend, effectively arresting anyone he feels likely to interfere with him. He claims that this is necessary to preserve the "life and property of the citizens of Pakistan."

Historically, there is nothing unique in what he has done and his justification of it.

What did he do?

1-He suspended the Constitution.
2-Arrested the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, then installed a successor.
3-Arrested a leading lawyer for the opposition.
4-He has delayed an election.
5-Arrested over 500 opposition leaders and journalists.

He used recent suicide bombings as one of his reasons justifying what he has done. It isn't unreasonable to wonder, from our perspective here in the US if we really want t full blown democracy in a country where fundamentalist Islamics have high levels of support and the country possesses a small handful of nuclear weapons. But is it beyond possibility that these bombings were orchestrated by Musharaff? There is precedence for this sort of thing.

There's nothing like a crisis to allow for a consolidation of power.

Before we get judgmental, can it happen here? Is there a scenario which you think could lead to a similar situation here?

How about this: Hillary Clinton seems to have been elected president over Giuliani, but just like in 2000 the results in one state are so close that a recount may be required. Then during the process another 9/11 type event occurs and the Bush administration declares a national emergency and claims that a shift in the presidency at that moment to Clinton would put the country in peril. They use military power to stay in the White House indefinitely and engineer a decision in the Supreme Court giving the election to Giuliani.

Impossible?