If u require a more professional answer for a reason, i can try to help tho. Would be like when i was doing research for the uni in good old days.
That's quite enough. I was interested in the opinion of someone from the inside, because those people from the Turkish diaspora, with whom I sometimes have contact, are simply very anti-Erdogan, and therefore not very objective.
Thanks for your answer. You are still 10 years younger than me
I can't believe that time is flying so fast, that I'll be 40 soon - I'm already so old
However, both were autocratic regimes, where political opponents were imprisoned for having different views. I wonder if there is a chance and when it will happen for Turkey to have some form of democracy (like Poland, for example, or Czech Republic) and for such situations not to occur. Unfortunately, it will probably be difficult now, because the international situation is difficult, so Erdogan can do more - UE, USA and Russia need him, but I hope that this will change someday.
Age is just a number my friend (i would've felt like a 60 year-old grandma the other week but now im in the streets with uni students, resistence makes u feel younger. 
I can advice that 
)
That's quite enough. I was interested in the opinion of someone from the inside, because those people from the Turkish diaspora, with whom I sometimes have contact, are simply very anti-Erdogan, and therefore not very objective.
I dont know if i can be considered objective or not tho. I am in favor of secularism, not a secular dictatorship but a secular democracy ofc. Then there comes Sokrates and our 'old republic' (im a swtor fan btw ) : anti-democratic thoughts finding way in a democracy can implode a democracy. Will we call Islamists an opposition or enemy of the republic, obviously the old regime did the second. On my part im still trying to find the answer of which is there a way to co-exist (well there must be if we want to end this violent spiral). But for that to happen, first Islamists should stop seeing the republic itself as an object to take revenge from for ending the ottoman empire and the caliphate. On that regard i find ur thought about the old republic a bit too Western-ish 
Turkey is both in Balkans and in Middle East, two places where identity politics cost way too much and took a toll on both people and countries. We have to also recall good things the old republic did. Old regime DID give up its chair to Adnan Menderes, one of two great things İnönü did was to give up his chair without intervention. But Adnan Menderes resorted to identity politics and became more and more autocrat, and violence began. Was the coup necessary tho? Idk, but army didnt trust its own people thats for sure. But the constitution the army did was the most democratic Turkey ever had. It was very pluralistic and there were many check and balance systems to state and its authority. One perspective on other coups is that they were done to dismantle the 1961 constitution and its effects on society, where the army believed it gave way to communism. And ofc there is 1971 coup, did u know that a few days before the coup was done, left-kemalists in the army tried to make a coup that will turn Turkey into socialist state but stopped by the right-wings in the army (not many people knows that even in Turkey). A perspective to 1980 coup is also to both dismantle 1961 constitution and also to introduce free-market economy to Turkey.
Long story short i dont think im objective but one thing for sure is i feel a lot more political these few days so, sorry for uninvitedly sharing thoughts 
Long story short i dont think im objective
It's very good that you write, because it's always nice to read a wise person 
People don't live only for sports - sometimes there are more important things!
Thousands are feared dead after a huge earthquake hit Thailand and Myanmar this morning, destroying buildings and sparking fears that dams could still collapse, leading to catastrophic flooding.
Thousands are feared dead after a huge earthquake hit Thailand and Myanmar this morning, destroying buildings and sparking fears that dams could still collapse, leading to catastrophic flooding.
Massive ... 7.7 magnitude !
It shook highrise buildings in Bangkok... one building under construction collapsed (photo below). Even people living in northern parts of Malaysia felt the tremors.
AP
SCMP
I would like to know the opinion of an experienced person who lived before and during Erdogan: when was life better? Before or now? Do you know the opinion of such people?
I did and I grew up in Istanbul.
Life before Erdogan was not good economically for several reasons, including deep state haltering advancements. However, Turkey was of course way more secular, you could dress up however you liked and could walk without fear in the streets. I remember that as 14 year olds, we could go to bars lol with classmates and hang out in Taksim in the evenings, and there was nothing to worry at all. Today that is impossible for many reasons and people are less tolerant, more importantly they are not afraid of attacking you due to violance to certain groups being promoted by the government.
Also Turkey had a multi-party system, where 5-6 parties were represented in the parliament, forcing them to collaborate. You could see collaboration between DSP (social democrats back then) and center right parties. Problem was, the system was not well functioning since one-two of the collaborative parties publicly criticised the governing party and pulled off their support, whenever they did not like things. This went on for a while in 90s, until the moment that the earthquake happened in Turkey, where DSP was the governing party with support of MHP (nationalists) and their leader pulled off the support to force an early election, since economy started to go terrible. This led to people looking for a stronger, governing party and AKP was lucky, since only 2 parties could pass 10% limit, while 2-3 others were in the border, around over 9%. If 2 more of these parties made it to the parliament in 2001 elections, we would be speaking about a completely different thing now.
Some norms in Turkey shifted drastically. When I was in University, my few classmates with scarf head to take them off while entering the university. AKP changed that and it was a big reaction back then, but today this new thing became a norm, which I, as a secular person actually approve. AKP's first 2 governing times were all about economy and partially liberating the rights of conservatives, as the example above. Problems started in the rest of the governing periods, where they tried to establish cultural changes as well as changing the constitution and governing mechanism, leading to a one-man state. So one can say, this started a polarisation between groups, which expanded by every year, now making the Erdogan haters a majority, first time.
This also shows that the attempts to change culture and brainwash with new educational system worked in exact opposite of AKP. Ateism and deism is getting more and more popular, particularly among youngsters, who also are in large majority against AKP and Erdogan. This also shows why AKP failed badly in the last local elections, losing all major cities to the opposition. Still the big issue is bringing together all of the opposition, with a candidate who can get support of most of them because they are more fractions in opposition than Erdogan supporters. But candidates like Imamoglu and Yavas seem to achieve that so far.
I guess it is one final attempt by AKP, knowing that they cannot win another election, even if they cheated at their best, so instead they prefer uprisings and controlling in another way, most likely not letting elections happening. This will be difficult though, considering that now the balance is in the worst case 70-30%, where opposition supporters a big majority, not only in numbers, but also the ones producing, consuming and keeping the not well functioning economy alive. With these people in the streets, it will be impossible to avoid what is expected. In a smaller uprising at Gezi, where AKP still had a very good support from the public, they failed to control it, today it would be even more difficult.
Another big change compared to pre-post Erdogan is of course the position of the army and police. Pre-Erdogan, military would remain neutral to a point where they could still keep the government in line with the principles of the Kemalism. By shutting down the military schools, I am sure they introduced some of their supporters to the army during the last 10 years. Police is also clearly in support of the government, but I will be surprised if they can play any significant role in such an uprising. Most of them would probably remain at homes, unlike the military.
Sorry for a long summary
Inspired by ezo, I can also tell that Turkish society was in a loop until Erdogan came in power. Both military coups in 60s and 80s were simply to make sure someone like Erdogan not getting the power. The most clear case is Adnan Menderes, and back then it was clear that society wanted a one-man leadership, centre-right etc, similar to what we see with Erdogan or? However this process was always cancelled by the military involvement where Adnan Menderes got death penalty.
Therefore, although it harmed Turkey to a great extent, I am glad we had to go through these 20 years and society finally can understand how this movie ends which was always cut in half due to military involvement. It is a big lesson which I hope people will remember and talk about for decades, hopefully meaning that they do not go for the same mistake again.
There is a fairly famous Swedish journalist, Joakim Medin, who is being held captive by Turkish authorities for traveling to the country amid the ongoing mass protests. He was arrested some day ago.
Display MoreI did and I grew up in Istanbul.
Life before Erdogan was not good economically for several reasons, including deep state haltering advancements. However, Turkey was of course way more secular, you could dress up however you liked and could walk without fear in the streets. I remember that as 14 year olds, we could go to bars lol with classmates and hang out in Taksim in the evenings, and there was nothing to worry at all. Today that is impossible for many reasons and people are less tolerant, more importantly they are not afraid of attacking you due to violance to certain groups being promoted by the government.
Also Turkey had a multi-party system, where 5-6 parties were represented in the parliament, forcing them to collaborate. You could see collaboration between DSP (social democrats back then) and center right parties. Problem was, the system was not well functioning since one-two of the collaborative parties publicly criticised the governing party and pulled off their support, whenever they did not like things. This went on for a while in 90s, until the moment that the earthquake happened in Turkey, where DSP was the governing party with support of MHP (nationalists) and their leader pulled off the support to force an early election, since economy started to go terrible. This led to people looking for a stronger, governing party and AKP was lucky, since only 2 parties could pass 10% limit, while 2-3 others were in the border, around over 9%. If 2 more of these parties made it to the parliament in 2001 elections, we would be speaking about a completely different thing now.
Some norms in Turkey shifted drastically. When I was in University, my few classmates with scarf head to take them off while entering the university. AKP changed that and it was a big reaction back then, but today this new thing became a norm, which I, as a secular person actually approve. AKP's first 2 governing times were all about economy and partially liberating the rights of conservatives, as the example above. Problems started in the rest of the governing periods, where they tried to establish cultural changes as well as changing the constitution and governing mechanism, leading to a one-man state. So one can say, this started a polarisation between groups, which expanded by every year, now making the Erdogan haters a majority, first time.
This also shows that the attempts to change culture and brainwash with new educational system worked in exact opposite of AKP. Ateism and deism is getting more and more popular, particularly among youngsters, who also are in large majority against AKP and Erdogan. This also shows why AKP failed badly in the last local elections, losing all major cities to the opposition. Still the big issue is bringing together all of the opposition, with a candidate who can get support of most of them because they are more fractions in opposition than Erdogan supporters. But candidates like Imamoglu and Yavas seem to achieve that so far.
I guess it is one final attempt by AKP, knowing that they cannot win another election, even if they cheated at their best, so instead they prefer uprisings and controlling in another way, most likely not letting elections happening. This will be difficult though, considering that now the balance is in the worst case 70-30%, where opposition supporters a big majority, not only in numbers, but also the ones producing, consuming and keeping the not well functioning economy alive. With these people in the streets, it will be impossible to avoid what is expected. In a smaller uprising at Gezi, where AKP still had a very good support from the public, they failed to control it, today it would be even more difficult.
Another big change compared to pre-post Erdogan is of course the position of the army and police. Pre-Erdogan, military would remain neutral to a point where they could still keep the government in line with the principles of the Kemalism. By shutting down the military schools, I am sure they introduced some of their supporters to the army during the last 10 years. Police is also clearly in support of the government, but I will be surprised if they can play any significant role in such an uprising. Most of them would probably remain at homes, unlike the military.
Sorry for a long summary
Thanks for the detailed answer and description of the situation in your country. This is one of the advantages of the universal internet, that you can write with people from other countries and learn various interesting things (wikipedia or YouTube aren`t enough),although of course the internet also has many bad sides.
you tell us about your experience living in a fascist country. Don’t act like you are saint. We wonder what makes you sleep at night knowing all the evil you guys are committing.
What are you talking about? Mussolini succumbed to his fate in 1945.
you tell us about your experience living in a fascist country. Don’t act like you are saint. We wonder what makes you sleep at night knowing all the evil you guys are committing.
We have a saying: Have you been drinking? Don't write... I recommend
What are you talking about?
I think he's either been drinking or he's some kind of idiot who's not worth writing
And now we see the negative effects of the universal Internet: you can meet an idiot like "umu11" and others like him
Inspired by ezo, I can also tell that Turkish society was in a loop until Erdogan came in power. Both military coups in 60s and 80s were simply to make sure someone like Erdogan not getting the power. The most clear case is Adnan Menderes, and back then it was clear that society wanted a one-man leadership, centre-right etc, similar to what we see with Erdogan or? However this process was always cancelled by the military involvement where Adnan Menderes got death penalty.
Therefore, although it harmed Turkey to a great extent, I am glad we had to go through these 20 years and society finally can understand how this movie ends which was always cut in half due to military involvement. It is a big lesson which I hope people will remember and talk about for decades, hopefully meaning that they do not go for the same mistake again.
I agree that with everything we have gone through and we have lost, hopefully we will (all of us) learn from this extreme experience.
I, however, disagree ur take about other coups (other than 1960 coup). My take about 1980 coup is pretty much in parallel with this declaration https://www.mmo.org.tr/merkez/…in-dorugu-akp-iktidaridir
i think it openned the way to AKP goverment with its socio-econ. and cultural policies. The way they used the terms and values that founded this country created a generation that was reactive to these values and terms. U might think it as Erdoğan trying to endoctrinate youth but skyrocketing atheism, but i disagree with this take as well (disagree the take that army accidentally created such a generation). I think that generation was exactly the aim of the army. Or of a group within the army.
Umu11 what bothered u my friend? We r just sharing thoughts in a chilled way.
There seems to be something wrong with this user, so it's best to ignore him.
It is a nice point ezo. I agree that the coup at 80s actually aimed at creating an apolitical society which ended succesfully. I remember, living in one of the most modern districts of Istanbul and we as kids, sometimes would use the political slogans for fun during our games like "Don't stay silent, as you keep silent, your turn will come". Our parents would warn us and we would simply think it is a horrible thing to say. This did not make my generation apolitical at all but simply anyone born before 1985 was exposed to this. So Turkey had a society which was extremely politically active (those who studied at university in 80s - so most likely born in 1960-1965) and then once again, starting with those born in 1985 and further. Today it is a completely different story.
Also what makes Turkey different than other similar governments is the opposition to Erdogan. It always have been a love or hate relation towards him and the AKP. The balance used to be 50-50 (consider that 10-15% of these groups are of course in the milder side of the picture). Normally in such leaderships, they would look for options to control the other half, which grew into approximately 70% today or even more, we don't know yet. Thanks to technology and access to internet as well as sources and international examples, controlling such oppositions is becoming more challenging for such governments. I am curious to see how this develop in future though, whether these kind of governments will find solutions and I don't mean blocking access to youtube, X etc since VPN is a thing lol.
The balance used to be 50-50 (consider that 10-15% of these groups are of course in the milder side of the picture). Normally in such leaderships, they would look for options to control the other half, which grew into approximately 70% today or even more, we don't know yet. Thanks to technology and access to internet as well as sources and international examples, controlling such oppositions is becoming more challenging for such governments. I am curious to see how this develop in future though, whether these kind of governments will find solutions and I don't mean blocking access to youtube, X etc since VPN is a thing lol.
Modern technology, rather than being a force for liberation, unfortunalety increasingly serves as the ultimate tool of control. This is the shared thesis of both 1984 by George Orwell and Brave New World by Aldous Huxley. While their depictions of totalitarianism differ—Orwell envisions a brutal, Soviet-style police state, whereas Huxley presents a hedonistic yet no less dehumanizing dictatorship inspired by his experiences in early 1930s America—both authors emphasize the central role of technology in ensuring total surveillance and absolute compliance. In both dystopias, technology is not merely an instrument of convenience or efficiency but the very mechanism by which human freedom is systematically dismantled.
A common illusion in contemporary discourse is that digital technology and the internet serve as counterweights to authoritarianism, empowering individuals by broadening access to information and facilitating political organization. While these aspects do exist, they are overshadowed by the immense benefits technology offers to those in power. In practice, surveillance infrastructure embedded within social media platforms, email services, and even niche online forums creates an unprecedented level of vulnerability for individuals living under—or at risk of falling under—authoritarian regimes. Your online presence, whether it be on a mainstream platform like Facebook or a niche interest forum like InsideVolley, can be scrutinized, cataloged, and weaponized against you by the state. This represents a violation of personal integrity on a scale previously unimaginable in human history.
The reality of technological authoritarianism is further underscored by recent legal precedents in ostensibly democratic nations. The ability to not merely resort to censorship but mobilize and disseminate dissenting views online is indeed a double-edged sword; while it allows for the rapid spread of information, it also exposes individuals to draconian crackdowns. The imprisonment of citizens in the UK and the US for sharing politically charged, yet ultimately harmless, memes illustrates how even the most banal forms of online expression can be policed with overwhelming force. If liberal democracies can wield such powers against their own populations, the implications for more overtly repressive regimes are even graver. The notion that modern technology serves as a bulwark against tyranny is thus revealed as a dangerous misconception. Far from fostering greater autonomy, digital advancements have tilted the balance of power decisively in favor of those who seek control, enabling them to suppress dissent as effortlessly as an elephant crushing an insect.
President of China, Xi Jinping has arrived in my country, Malaysia for a 3 day visit. We hope he will enjoy our nice weather, warm hospitality and delicious food here
