http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Turkey-Referendum-AK-Party-Wins-Vote-To-Amend-Constitution-But-Fears-Islamist-Agenda-Encroaching/Article/201009215726131?lpos=World_News_First_Home_Article_Teaser_Region_2&lid=ARTICLE_15726131_Turkey_Referendum:_AK_Party_Wins_Vote_To_Amend_Constitution_But_Fears_Islamist_Agenda_Encroaching

Fears Vote Moves Turkey Nearer Islamic State

Turkey’s ruling AK party has won a referendum to start work on a brand new constitution but opponents fear it could usher in a hidden Islamic agenda.

The “yes” vote is a victory for Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan because it boosts the chances of his conservative Muslim AK Party winning a third term in power. The 26 approved changes to the referendum including making the military more accountable to the courts and allowing civil servants to strike. Many of the measures are uncontroversial but a move to give parliament a role in appointing judges has raised concerns that the judiciary will lose its independence. The issue of amending the constitution has become a battleground between the government and traditional power elites. The charter was crafted after a military coup in 1980 and Mr Erdogan whipped up public support to change it by reviving memories of the brutal repression that followed. Many in the armed forces are opposed to changing the constitution, saying Turkey’s secular principles are under threat.

Tyranny of Control: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2024617864923164175#docid=-2798161794328252652

Well, it can go on for a long time, considering that China is paying for it! India’s ham-fisted intervention in Lanka, and then it’s ignoring the needs of the gov’t there, has left Lanka being stiche tightly into China’s “string of pearls” in the Indian Ocean.

I think the post is too focused on the implications in terms of political theory. In terms of power, what you quoted about the legal formalization of ‘wartime’ power is what’s happened – I think the train left the station a long time ago (maybe 1948! maybe before! maybe 1983. Maybe the 1970s)and just hadn’t indicated its destination as clearly. What the rest of us can do about it seems more important, but that’s not different from before I read the post. Unless I’m deeply misunderstanding the consequences of this, like i do with a lot of stuff like this

In that context, I would find it hard to believe that Rajapaksa has much tolerance from the North and East and in the Tamil diaspora given how he prosecuted the war and what I have heard about what has happened since and more broadly the history of Sri Lanka. This is a guess on my part, though, and if someone informed has relevant information or can provide some links, I’d be interested to hear.

More to the point of the post, the question of ethnicity in Sri Lanka is the more interesting question for the future of Sri Lanka’s politics, not whether or not his election results were legitimate or not or the implications on separation of power between the president and parliament: Is it possible for a Sinhalese leader to emerge now who can make real peace and a political settlement to that effect or are we just going to see a reemergence of violence in a different form, providing continued ‘justification’ for these kinds of moves by Sri Lankan politicians, or a ‘final solution’? Maybe I’m biased in terms of my interests, but I think the question of whether Sri Lanka is one country or two (or perhaps more) has yet to be resolved.

If you have issues with my survey methods, which are based on international standards, and you will dismiss them as “sweeping claims” then I really don’t have anything else to say. Except, go to Groundviews and read a blog about Sri Lanka by the people for the people. http://www.groundviews.lk/

I read the report (the pdf file). Maybe you didn’t mean this one—there is only one case of electoral violation recorded, despite the claim that 170 polling stations were watched. In Vavuniya. Everything is maybe, probably, or minor points that can be improved on, but should not count as a violation (lack of proper access to physically disabled people). There are no other facts in the report.

The recommendations put out are sweeping, but that bothers me. It is a stock list, with very little thought evident as to whether they are feasible in the Sri Lankan case. The report seems to be modified from another report dated Oct 12 2008, which makes it look doubly bad.

Secondly, the moment you say “international standards”, a red flag goes up. What on earth is an international standard when it comes to sampling opinion? What you need to convince me is that you sampled a representative portion of the population. What is your confidence level? If you stood around in Colombo, how are you sure you sampled the opinions of the whole country? It is like standing in SF and saying America supports gay marriage. If you talked with party leaders, did you obtain any statistics from them? What parties did you talk to, and were the people you talked to speaking for the party or for themselves? How do you trust the validity of any party data you may have got?

I am sorry, but I am really skeptical about your method and conclusions—and the way I see it, it isn’t ok for you to say “if you have problems with my international standard approaches, I have nothing to say”. You are making a claim that can potentially influence or even hurt people, the least you can do is to be able to argue for your methods. Sampling like this is, in my opinion, a way for social scientists to “give the dog a bad name and hang it”.

Maybe Rajapaksa is popular, in pretty much the same way Indira Gandhi was at the beginning. Or after in 1980, even after the emergency. Things may change later, but starting from the wrong premise is the surest way to be irrelevant.

The average Sri Lankan citizen isn’t stupid, they probably sense that MR and his coterie aren’t lily white but they’re riding the post-war euphoria right now. The people there are so optimistic right now, it’s sort of crazy. They’re willing to ignore the dark side because anything is better than a 30-year conflict. Mahinda’s exploiting his overwhelming popularity and consolidating his power now and there’s no credible opposition to point out the consequences.

Of course this will all turn a bit sour when the people realize Mahinda can’t deliver on everything he’s promised. The array of subsidies and showy infrastructure projects can’t go on forever. People will start noticing the cronyism at the top, the funds being siphoned away by his bros and advisors. The reason this amendment is so unsettling is that the people, if/when they want a change, may no longer be able to achieve it in an election.

Like someone above intimated, a challenger can’t hope to unseat a president with this much authority through the political process. this will inevitably lead to renewed violence.