An article from “Iran Review” describes the three main factions in Turkey. The article is titled “Democratization of Power in Turkey.” It talks about three identities of different groups: Islamic, Turkish and European. The Prime Minister Erdogan is proposing changes in the state, with these groups in mind. The premise is to keep the State of Turkey intact while providing means for the conflicting aspirations and visions of the groups to be reconciled. This kind of political maneuver uses “democracy” and “democratization” as a way to create a political balance that maintains the State of Turkey. It therefore opposes secession, panarchy, autonomous regions, federations, and other solutions. Each group in the one-state scenario must become a rival jockeying for dominance over the others, to the extent possible. Compromise is one possible outcome but so is continual rivalry, with no one being really happy at the result. If the groups can see no other way to live than to control a single state and impose on others through that state, then continual bickering and hostility or even fighting will result until one faction for whatever reason becomes dominant.
But the main point I wanted to make is that the terms democracy and democratization, which are what the U.S. seeks for many countries that are riven with factions, really means a one-state political solution for these lands. There are no good reasons why such a solution is a good idea for all sorts of disparate countries that have unique problems and societies. There is no good reason why imposing or pushing for such a solution, to the point of engaging in multiple wars, does anything good for the people of America.
Democracy and democratization are being used as semi-holy goals, but in standing in for support of a single monopoly State, they preclude all sorts of other political solutions, from secession to autonomous regions to exterritorialism to federations. This is another case in which democracy is in opposition to a more far-reaching political freedom, one that supports freedom of association.
Change and motion are virtually laws of nature and the universe. There is nothing sacrosanct about the State. Its sovereignty and territoriality are going to be broken down. The major danger during this process is that a few large states by themselves or in conjunction with the U.N. consolidate into a worldwide power. This is a danger because smaller groupings are more vulnerable militarily and economically. The world cannot move forward toward greater justice without clearly recognizing those rights that are natural and rejecting those so-called positive rights that have been snuck in under various banners. This is because all attempts to create positive rights are going to lead right back to oppressive government.10:25 am on October 11, 2013 Email Michael S. Rozeff