Turkey’s Referendum a Blow to the New World Order

A constitutional referendum took place on April 16 in Turkey. This was to approve 18 constitutional amendments. These would bring in a purely presidential system over the older English-style parliamentary system. The most important part was that the President would have great control over judicial and cabinet appointments that, up until today, have been approved by parliament. To calm claims of dictatorship, the new parliament was to be raised from 550 to 600 seats. Parliamentary approval or executive actions is gone.

The referendum was held under martial law, one still in existence after the coup attempt of last year. Recep Tayyip Erdogan has won this by a small majority. This has been a program of the ruling party and the Islamic nationalist movement for years, but only a trauma like the coup was needed to bring it about. Those arguing for it was that it would get rid of unstable coalition governments that ran Turkey since 1960. Erdogan has gone so far as to argue that those rejecting his proposals are supporters of the failed coup. It seems, however, that the referendum victory is good for the forces fighting the New World Order.

The campaign was met with predictable accusations of state suppression of the partisans of the old system. Allegedly, major Turkish figures such as Meral Akşener, Ümit Özdağ, Sinan Oğan and Yusuf Halaçoğlu were all subject to both violence and restrictions on their political life. On the other hand, European governments were accused to repressing the nationalist movement of Turks abroad. Millions of Turks work in Europe.

The main criticism of the government’s proposals was that the separation of powers would be destroyed by these amendments. It is argued that this would reduce parliament to utter powerlessness. The basic argument is that the executive will dominate both the legislative and the judiciary. More abstractly, it would destroy secularism, since this is the desire of the Islamic parties. Some even made the argument that this is the adoption of the Syrian constitution: a multiparty democracy with a very powerful president.

EU rapporteur on Turkey Kati Piri minced no words, saying

This is a sad day for all democrats in Turkey. It is clear that the country cannot join the EU with a constitution that doesn’t respect the separation of powers and has no checks and balances. If the package is implemented unchanged, this will have to lead to the formal suspension of the EU accession talks. Continuing to talk about Turkey’s integration into Europe under the current circumstances has become a farce.

This might only make the proposals all the more interesting to nationalists the world over. It might well be that Turkey has yet again rejected the EU and will move closer to China. The Economist of London, the mouthpiece of the Rothschild clan, states hyperbolically that “a vote for Yes would saddle the country with an elected dictator.” The corporate NGOs such as Human Rights Watch have also condemned these proposals.

The conception is that corporate power cannot rule Turkey under a strong, centralized state. Only the unstable coalitions of years past guaranteed a weak state easily manipulated by international capital. In Erdogan’s first years in power, the economy grew by 5-7 percent interest rates were low and credit was widely available. He focused on the poor, bringing many into middle class status. However, as soon as the credit was taken up, foreign capital left the country, leaving a broke and unemployed population. This is what Erdogan wants to avoid happening again.

According to the EU Report on Turkey from last year, extensive legal immunities are given to counter-terrorism forces and military intelligence. Unfortunately, few see this as anything other than a necessity. For these to be subject to parliament would be to hamper their efforts in a war their enemies have made very dirty. This is no different from in the US.

One very negative change is that Erdogan replaced hundreds of generals, leading to a radical shift in long-term planning and a lessening of quality. Alon ben-Mir states:

Turkey defies the NATO charter that requires its members to “safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilization of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law.” By not adhering to these principles, Turkey risks being potentially expelled, especially now that Erdogan appears to be increasingly gravitating toward Moscow.

This means that these proposals are Turkey’s means of eliminating their dependence on the New World Order. Only a strong state can do this. The world’s media are going into conceptions because a strong presidency, such as existing in Russia or Belarus, is needed to sever their dependence on western capital.

Despite being a NATO member and having the second strongest military in that alliance, Turkey is flirting with Russia. This is the main reason for the attacks on his desire for a more centralized state. He has purchased the S-400 Russian air defense system and has allied with China on several key areas. The west is terrified. It would be a shocking blow to the NWO. However, it should be noted that after the purge of the military last year, a full third of the military overall has been removed. Its air force has been reduced to 140 combat aircraft, where it had been around 300 before the coup.

Even worse has been the uncovering of Turkey’s purchase of Iranian oil using gold, eliminating the dollar. Turkey is as large as Germany. If it turns its back on “European values,” then the NATO alliance itself is in danger. Turning to Russian means that all NATOs secrets fall into its hands. Turkey no longer cares about globalization, since its seen the destruction it can wreak on a country. They no longer want to be a part of the indebted and increasingly reviled EU. Turkey’s departure to Russia might start a massive chain reaction to bring the system down.

Matthew Raphael Johnson

Matthew Raphael Johnson is a scholar of Russian Orthodox history and philosophy. He completed his doctorate at the University of Nebraska at Lincoln in 1999. He is a former professor of both history and political science at the University of Nebraska (as a graduate student), Penn State University and Mount St. Mary’s University. Since 1999, he was the editor (and is presently Senior Researcher) at The Barnes Review, a well-known renegade journal of European history. Dr. Johnson is the author of eight books. Six are from Hromada Books, "Sobornosti: Essays on the Old Faith;" "Heavenly Serbia and the Medieval Idea;" "Orthodoxy, Autocracy, Nationality: Lectures on Medieval Russia;" "The Ancient Orthodox Tradition in Russian Literature: "The Foreign Policy of Mass Society: The Failure of Western Engagement in the Middle East;" and "Officially Approved Dissent: Alasdair MacIntyre’s Strategic Ambiguity in His Critique of Modernity." And two published by The Barnes Review, "The Third Rome: Holy Russia, Tsarism and Orthodoxy;" and "Russian Populist: The Political Thought of Vladimir Putin."

Recent Posts
Recent Comments