Giuseppe Sandro Mela.
«He’s not a Dictator, He’s a Democrat»
Questo è il titolo dell’editoriale di Patrick Kingsley sul The New York Times, che prosegue dicendo “he has unfettered support from Turks who like the idea of a strong leader standing against external aggression” e termina con la ovvia conclusione “Turkey May Finally End Its Long Flirtation With the E.U.“
* * *
Al di là delle diatribe di vil bottega ideologica, i titoli tedeschi esprimono alla perfezione ciò che è successo nei fatti con il referendum turko.
* * *
Ma chi mai sarebbe ad oggi la Bundeskanzlerin Frau Merkel? La quale, per di più da domenica prossima avrà perso il fedele scudiero, Mr Hollande, palafreniere del fu-socialismo rampante?
«European Commission chief Jean-Claude Juncker has warned Turkey that any return of the death penalty would be a “red line” in the country’s stalled EU membership bid.
“If the death penalty is reintroduced in Turkey, that would lead to the end of negotiations,” he told Sunday’s edition of Germany’s Bild newspaper, calling it a “red line”.»
A riprova di quanto sia compatta l’Unione Europea, questa sarebbe la posizione del Cancelliere austriaco:
Il socialismo ideologico di Mr Juncker contrasta con l’invocazione lanciata da Frau Merkel.
Di quando in qua si fa politica regolando i rapporti internazionali su giudizi partigiani nelle politiche interne di altre nazioni?
Sai quanto se ne fanno Mr Putin, Mr Xi e Mr Trump.
La Realpolitik impone di prendere atto che Mr Erdogan da fatto transitare la Turkia da stato parlamentare a stato presidenziale.
«Europe’s spine has cracked. This referendum will be the most effective thing in the rebirth of the Ottoman Empire. Europe has to look at itself.»
«it reflects the profound polarization of Turkish society.»
Sembrerebbe che ci si sia dimenticati come la Turkia sia uno stato profondamente islamico.
Il Presidente Recep Tayyip Erdoğan
ha semplicemente riesumato l’Impero Ottomano.
Il quale Impero ha contro l’Unione Europea, e la Germania in particolare, un’arma micidiale:
→ Hurriet Daily News. 2017-04-18. Trump congratulates Erdoğan on referendum win
U.S. President Donald Trump congratulated President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan on April 17 in a telephone call after his narrow victory in a constitutional referendum, the Turkish Presidency’s press office said.
The call came a day after more than 51 percent of Turks voted in favor of 18 constitutional amendments that will, among other things, see Turkey switch from a parliamentary to an executive presidency with vastly enhanced powers for Erdoğan.
Trump’s message came in contrast to a message released by the State Department, which cited a report by international observers who had noted “irregularities on voting day and an uneven playing field during the difficult campaign period.”
The two leaders also discussed an alleged chemical attack by the Syrian government on April 4 that killed approximately 100 civilians and injured 500 others in the opposition-held town of Khan Sheikhoun in Idlib province.
Investigators in Turkey and elsewhere believe sarin gas was used in the attack.
Trump and Erdoğan agreed Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was responsible for the attack.
The U.S. president also thanked Turkey for its support for U.S. missile strikes on the Shayrat air base on April 7 in retaliation for the chemical attack.
Both leaders also stressed the need for cooperation in the fight against terror groups, including the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).
→ Bbc. 2017-04-18. Turkey referendum: Trump congratulates Erdogan
Donald Trump has congratulated Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan on his victory in Sunday’s referendum that gave him sweeping new powers.
The US president’s phone call contrasts with concern by European leaders who have pointed out how the result – 51.4% in favour of the changes – has exposed deep splits in Turkish society.
Mr Erdogan has rejected criticism from international monitors who said he had been favoured by an “unequal campaign”.
“Know your place,” he told them.
The narrow victory was ruled valid by Turkey’s electoral body, despite claims of irregularities by the opposition.
On Monday, Turkey extended the state of emergency for three months. The measure, introduced after a failed coup last July, was set to expire in two days.
Is Trump support a boost for Erdogan? Mark Lowen, BBC News, Istanbul
The call from Donald Trump was pre-arranged and the focus was Syria – but the congratulations for President Erdogan’s victory means the US president joins leaders from Qatar, Guinea, Djibouti and the Palestinian militant movement Hamas to voice the opinion, while those in Europe have been far more cautious.
It will delight Erdogan supporters, who will see it as legitimising the president’s victory. But it will dismay opponents, after Mr Erdogan’s fiery tirades against the West and the damning verdict of international observers.
It also exposes a split between the EU and US on Turkey: Mr Trump opting for realpolitik while Europe urges the unpredictable Turkish leader to reconcile a divided country.
And it will reiterate similarities between Presidents Trump and Erdogan on issues like democratic norms and press freedom – though the Turkish president has of course dealt with them in a far more extreme way.
Ultimately, President Trump was perhaps aiming to win favour in Ankara, given that the two sides have fundamental disagreements over Syria.
What are the disagreements about?
Syria is one of the issues straining relations between Washington and Ankara.
Turkey is irked by the policy started by the Obama administration of supporting Kurdish fighters in Syria who are fighting IS forces.
Turkey views the Syrian Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG) as a terror group linked to Kurdish separatists waging an insurgency inside Turkey since 1984.
Turkey – a key Nato ally – has established closer co-operation with Russia recently.
The two sides are also at loggerheads over Fethullah Gulen. Turkey accuses the Pennsylvania-based cleric of orchestrating the failed coup and wants him extradited.
Officially Washington insists any decision on returning him to Turkey from the US remains a judicial rather than a political one.
What have European leaders said?
German Chancellor Angela Merkel warned that the “tight referendum result shows how deeply divided Turkish society is and that means a big responsibility for the Turkish leadership and for President Erdogan personally”.
The European Commission issued a similar call.
Others expressed concern about the possibility of the return of capital punishment.
The French president’s office warned that any referendum on reviving the death penalty would “obviously be a break with values and engagements” that Turkey had accepted in joining the Council of Europe. The president of the European Parliament, Antonio Tajani, tweeted his own concerns.
Austrian Foreign Minister Sebastian Kurz went further. He said the referendum result was a “clear signal against the European Union”. The “fiction” of Turkey’s bid to join the bloc must be ended, Mr Kurz said.
Why are international monitors concerned?
Despite saying that the voting day was “well administered”, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) and the Council of Europe criticised the referendum campaign, and the Council of Europe said the vote “did not live up” its standards.
The monitors also criticised a late change by electoral officials that allowed voting papers without official stamps to be counted. But the head of Turkey’s electoral body, Sadi Guven, said the unstamped ballot papers had been produced by the High Electoral Board and were valid. He said a similar procedure had been used in past elections.
What did the president say about the result?
Mr Erdogan told supporters that Turkey did not “see, hear or acknowledge the politically motivated reports” of the monitors.
The result, he said, ended the debate on changing the constitution and creating an executive presidency, adding that the process of implementing the reforms would now begin.
He also said the country could hold a referendum on its long-stalled EU membership bid.
Additionally, Mr Erdogan said he would approve the death penalty if it was supported in a referendum or a bill was submitted to him through parliament. This would end Turkey’s EU negotiations.
What do the constitutional changes include?
– The president will have a five-year tenure, for a maximum of two terms
– The president will be able to directly appoint top public officials, including ministers and one or several vice-presidents
– The job of prime minister will be scrapped
– The president will have power to intervene in the judiciary, which Mr Erdogan has accused of being influenced by Fethullah Gulen, the Pennsylvania-based preacher he blames for the failed coup in July
– The president will decide whether or not impose a state of emergency.
→ Bloomberg. 2017-04-18. How Turkey’s Referendum Could Be a Prelude to French Surprise
Undeterred by warnings, particularly from the Western media — including The Economist’s stark caution that Turkey risked “sliding into dictatorship” — voters narrowly approved a referendum proposal on Sunday that expands President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s powers under the constitution. Judging from some of the voter interviews, one of the drivers of this outcome was the Turkish electorate’s hope that stronger leadership can provide greater stability, security and prosperity.
This phenomenon has also played out in other countries, and is likely to continue to have an effect in the months ahead. As a result, neither markets nor political scientists should underestimate what some swing voters are willing to accept, and risk, in their quest for greater national strength, a development that raises interesting domestic and global issues — including possibly in the upcoming presidential elections in France.
With 51.4 percent of the vote in his favor, and an 85 percent turnout, Erdogan now has wider powers over matters of legislation, finance, appointments and civil society. His win comes at a time of significant regional fluidity, including the conflicts in Syria, together with greater tensions in the country’s already delicate relations with Western Europe.
This referendum outcome will embolden the Turkish government: Its first actions postelection included prolonging the state of emergency for three months and signaling the possibility of holding a referendum on reintroducing the death penalty. But it is also generating internal and external push back.
Seizing on reports of irregularities, including by external observers who noted that the referendum fell short of international standards, opposition parties are questioning the legitimacy of the result. The fact that Turkey’s three main cities voted “no” is seen by some as a signal of caution for the government. Meanwhile, in an unusual set of comments, high-level European officials, including Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, have warned the government against extrapolating too much from a vote that they regard as illustrating a deep split in Turkey.
But all this is unlikely to deter the Turkish government from drawing the same types of conclusions as President Donald Trump did from his election victory and the U.K. government did from the Brexit referendum: Unsettled and, at times, angry citizens are looking for stronger leadership to regain control of their destiny. And this comes at a time of “unusual uncertainty” both at home and abroad.
How the trade-off turns out well will depend both on how constructively the Turkish government, and Erdogan in particular, uses the new constitutional powers. In the meantime, both markets and political scientists should remember that what occurred in Turkey on Sunday is partly an illustration of a broader global phenomenon of significant numbers of people showing they are willing to take risks in opting for the promise of stronger leadership to secure greater stability and security. And they seem willing to do so even if it entails weakening longstanding checks and balances, potentially fueling political cults of personality and, perhaps even increasing the threat of an eventual slide into greater authoritarianism.
This phenomenon will probably be tested again in the first round of the presidential vote in France on April 23. Already, the three anti-establishment candidates — Marine Le Pen of the National Front, Jean-Luc Melenchon of the far left, and Emmanuel Macron, who is running as part of a self-declared new movement — have shaken up the country’s politics. In the process, they have out-distanced the insiders Francois Fillon and Benoit Hamon, who have been hampered by liabilities of their own making.
Insights from Turkey’s referendum add to the possibility of a victory by one of the unconventional candidates in France. That includes not only the front-runner Macron but there also is a lower extreme tail risk for Le Pen or Melenchon.
→ Hurriet Daily News. 2017-04-18. Turkey approves presidential system in tight referendum
Some 51.3 percent of the more than 58 million Turkish voters said “yes” to the ruling Justice and Development Party’s (AKP) constitutional amendment package in a tight race to decide on whether to shift to an executive presidential system.
The gap between the two votes stood at around 1.3 million according to midnight figures by the state-run Anadolu Agency. The turnout exceeded 84 percent.
The approval of the amendment package – which was backed by the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) and opposed by the main opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP) and the Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP), the third largest party in parliament – means an administrative shift will take place in 2019 if no early elections are held.
However, the ruling party is expected to call for President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan to return to lead the AKP, something that was officially forbidden in the former system due to the constitutional impartiality of the president.
The most debated change in the 18-article package was the granting of executive powers to the elected president, who can pick his cabinet ministers from outside parliament.
Accordingly, the parliamentary and presidential elections will be held on the same day every five years.
The president can appoint one or more vice presidents. The vice presidents will represent the president and will be able to use the authorities of the president in the event that the presidential post has become vacant for any reason. Vice presidents and ministers can be appealed to the Supreme Court by the same procedure as the president, and will benefit from the provisions of immunity about offences not related to their duties.
The “No” vote prevailed in Istanbul, Ankara and İzmir, the three largest cities in Turkey, with 51.3 percent, 51.1 percent and 68.8 percent of the vote respectively.
The “Yes” vote reflected the AKP’s dominance in the Black Sea region, while “No” votes dominated in most southeastern provinces, where the Kurdish-issue focused HDP is strong.
In votes cast overseas, the “Yes” camp won 59.27 percent while “No” votes won 40.73 percent. In Germany, “Yes” won 63.19 percent with 269,036 voters, while the “No” side won 36.81 percent with 157,467 voters.
Tensions ran high between the two NATO allies before the referendum, with Germany canceling several campaign rallies by Turkish ministers on German soil, drawing accusations from Turkey of “Nazi tactics.”
Tensions were also high point between the Netherlands and Turkey due to the former’s banning of campaign events by Turkish ministers. Family Affairs and Social Policies Minister Fatma Betül Sayan Kaya was prevented by Dutch police from reaching Turkey’s consulate in Rotterdam on March 11 after being told not to enter the Netherlands to conduct political campaigning for the referendum. Kaya was subsequently deported to Germany by Dutch police early on March 12. In the Netherlands the “Yes” side won 69.93 percent of the vote and 47,911 votes, while the “No” side stood at 30.07 percent in the Netherlands with 20,602 votes.
“No” votes prevailed in the United States with 83.26 percent and 3,362 votes, while 16,719 Turkish citizens voted “No” in the United States.
With the new amendments, elections can be renewed by both parliament and the president. If the parliament decides in favor of a re-election by 360 votes, parliamentary and presidential elections will be made at the same time.
In addition, all military courts are lifted apart from disciplinary ones.
The configuration of the Constitutional Court has also changed, with the number of members reduced to 15 from 17. Twelve members will be appointed by the president while three will be appointed by parliament.
The name of the Supreme Board of Judges and Elections will be changed into the Board of Judges and Elections. The number of members will be cut to 13 from 22. The minister of justice will be the head of the board, while the undersecretary of the Justice Ministry will be a regular member. Four members will be appointed by the president, three by parliament, three by the Supreme Court, and one by the Council of State.
The president will have the authority to issue budgets for approval by the parliament.
With the change, the number of MPs will be increased to 600 from the current 550. The minimum age to be elected will be reduced to 18 from 25.
Debate on a parliamentary inquiry can be initiated about any misconduct of the president regarding presidential duties by the votes of 301 lawmakers. However, the parliamentary inquiry can only be initiated with 360 votes. If the inquiry concludes that the president has committed misconduct, a minimum 400 votes will open the path to appeal to the Supreme Court. The procedure will also be applicable after the term of the president ends.