Charlie Rose Science Series
Click here to watch previous episodes of the Charlie Rose Science Series
Hot, Flat, and Crowded: Why We Need a Green Revolution--and How It Can Renew America
by Thomas L. Friedman
Buy it
by Thomas L. Friedman
Buy it
07/23/2007
Sabrina Tavernise
A discussion about the elections in Turkey
Keywords:
A discussion about the elections in Turkey with Sabrina Tavernise of The New York Times reporting from Istanbul.
DVD
Charlie Rose DVDs on Amazon.
Charlie Rose DVDs on Amazon.
Audio
Audio available through Audible.com.
Audio available through Audible.com.
Transcripts
Transcripts available through Voxant.
Transcripts available through Voxant.
Comment by Adnan: "It would the equivalent of bashing Kennedy for wearing a cross." But Kennedy did NOT wear a cross (at least not publicly). I'm not aware of any prominent politician in this country who publicly wears a religious symbol, precisely because it would be considered highly provocative & divisive. Kennedy was the first Catholic to be elected President, & when he ran, he had to reassure the voters that he would not seek to impose his religion on the state, even though, unlike Erdogan, he did not run as the representative of a religious party. The separation of church & state has been one of the most contentious issues in Western history. Turks who support a secular state have every reason to be concerned about the survival of secularism in Turkey.
Why is there a presumption on the part of everyone in the media that the AK party is duplicitious? How many countless times do the AK party officials have to come out in the open publicly both in America and in Turkey to express their committment to the Turkish secular society? I find the entire discussion heavily tilted and very virulently anti-islamic. The leaders of the AK party are maligned because their wives and daughters wear head scarves. It would the equivalent of bashing Kennedy for wearing a cross. Turkey is not secular in the fullest sense not because of this big bad lurking phantom of the "islamists" (which doesnt exist). Turkey fails to be a democaratic society because it considers people's personal religious choices,especially if they decide to practice Islam personally, to be anti-Turkish. Ataturk instilled this anti-Islamic strain early in his days and the country suffers to this day. Women in turkey cannot study in universities if they choose to wear a head scarf. Does that make sense on any feminist, secular or democratic analysis? The reporting of this event has been horrendous except for the few academics who do not feel the need to exaggerate news stories and have a much more clearer sense of history. All in all, most turkish people are conservative muslims. Yes, I know that scares a lot of "secularists" but the middle of istanbul is unlike majority of the country and finally the everday turk is going up against the elite who have for the longest repressed everyone else in turkey and forced their impression of a "secular" society on others.
I am surprised to hear that both Mr. Rose and Ms. Tavernise said thet "Kurds are elected to the Turkish Parliament". Kurds have been always represented in the Turkish parliament. The outgoing parliament had as much as 30% Kurdish MP's. What actually happened is this: Kurds from the Democratic Society Party got elected. This party is viewed by some as being "pro-Kurdish", by some as being a front for the representative, and yet by others as defendants of Kurdish cultural rights. It is also interesting to note in some provinces where Kurds are almost 100% of the population, AK party got almost 70% of the votes. For example, in Bingol, considered to be a hot bed of Kurdish seperatism, AK Party got 71.6 % of the votes. The candidates at this province are all Kurds as well. Ahmet Toprak Director San Francisco Turkish Radio http://www.TurkRadio.us