And this has been taking place for decades, and we've been quiet as mice. ricochet.com/archives/the-v…, city-journal.org/html/notes-tur…, pbs.org/frontlineworld… ... I could continue. It did not begin under AKP, but nor did it improve during period we were praising, lauding TR as a "model."
I don't know whether all these figures have been unjustly jailed: I've not read the indictments, don't know the details of many of these cases. But I certainly know TR's justice system can be almost absurdly arbitrary and entirely political, so it's wholly plausible they are.
More importantly, perhaps, Turkish *law* criminalizes activity that would not be a crime in an open society, making it lawful to prosecute people for political activities that are normal in liberal democracies.
So some may be "justly" jailed according to the letter of the law, but the law itself is unjust--or certainly, illiberal. Whether Turkey wishes to be an open society and a liberal democracy is for Turks to decide;
I don't think Americans are in a terrific place right now to be giving lectures on liberal democracy--or for that matter criminal law. (Turkish incarceration rate: 237/100,000. US incarceration rate: 716/100,000.)
But *this* American will gladly make the case--to anyone who wants to hear it, in Turkey or America--that liberal democracy is the best system of government, by far, that mankind has tried. It is the best solution for achieving peace, political stability, and prosperity.
And it is also the most respectful of human dignity. So I encourage Americans to *constructively and consistently* to promote liberal democracy in Turkey, and appeal to Turks *constructively and consistently* to promote those values in the US.
I don't think that such encouragement constitutes "interfering in another country's business." If sincere, it is "helping another country." If successful, there is a *huge* incentive for every state to encourage others to become liberal democracies: The democratic peace theory.
It is of course debated among IR specialists, but Jack Levy was basically right: "The absence of war between [liberal] democratic states comes as close as anything we have to an empirical law in international relations." annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.114…
When we go nuts over Brunson after turning a blind eye for decades to human rights and liberal democracy in Turkey, it does not genuinely help Turkey to become a more liberal democracy, even if the cause of freeing Brunson is just.
When Turks scream that we're bullies and hypocrites who don't practice what we preach, it does not genuinely help the US to become a more liberal democracy, even if the argument has merit.
But sincere care for the people of another country, sincerely expressed, by people who *truly* believe that all human life is of equal worth and dignity, and who *truly* believe the world will be more peaceful and prosperous if liberal democracy flourishes, isn't "interfering."
It all depends how, why, and when, you say it--and if you really believe it. The US--if we still believe in liberal democracy, still believe in democratic peace, and still believe all men are created equal--needs to spend a *lot* more time thinking about how we express this.
Because the fact is: In the past decades we've seen a global increase in electoral democracy, yes, but a dramatic global decrease in *freedom,* which I understand to mean that we've successfully promoted the idea of democracy--it's now a global norm:
But we have been wildly unsuccessful in promoting *liberal* democracy--that is to say, freedom--as a global norm. Perhaps we're not capable of promoting it. Perhaps that's just too hard. But I think it's too soon to give up, especially since the alternative is war.
And especially since it's really *awfully* obvious that we haven't been trying very hard, or have been trying in ways that common sense should have told us would not only not work, but would discredit these ideas--which is a tragedy.
