Mediaboss Marketing

Critics of Rupert Murdochs bid say Sky News could become more like rightwing US-based Fox News. Photograph: Joe Castro/AAP

Opponents of Rupert Murdochs bid to take full control of Sky have called for it to be blocked because the moguls family are not fit and proper owners following the phone-hacking scandal.

The same critics have also raised fears that Sky News could become more Foxified, a reference to the rightwing US broadcaster Fox News, which would come under the same roof as the UK channel if the merger went ahead.

On Wednesday, campaigning group 38 Degrees delivered a 300,000-strong petition to Karen Bradley, the culture secretary, demanding the proposed 11.7bn takeover be referred to Ofcom for further investigation.

Giving even more control over our media to one man is a serious threat to our democracy, said Maggie Chao, campaigner at 38 Degrees. Rupert Murdoch is not fit and proper to take even more control over the news we read and watch.

Bradley, who has set a deadline of Wednesday for submissions from 21st Century Fox and opponents of the deal to make their case, has said she is minded to call on Ofcom to assess potential media plurality issues and concerns about whether Fox is committed to the required editorial standards, such as accuracy and impartial news coverage.

38 Degrees has been joined by online activist group Avaaz and watchdog Media Matters in ramping up pressure on Bradley.

Avaaz, in conjunction with the Media Reform Coalition, has already made a submission arguing that the bid should be rejected on media concentration grounds because the overall market shares of both Murdoch-owned newspapers the Sun and the Times as well as Sky remain materially unchanged since the last bid in 2011.

Avaaz has now also submitted a lengthy document, in conjunction with Media Matters, cataloguing a wide range of examples of Murdoch exerting influence over the output of media that he own in the US and the UK.

In September, Media Matters called for an investigation into rightwing news network Fox News after allegations that the cable channel hired a private investigator to obtain the phone records of its reporter, Joe Strupp.

Rival broadcasters are also expected to lodge complaints in the UK and Europe the European commission is also examining the deal after expressing concerns that a Fox/Sky combination will dominate bidding for top-flight sport, TV shows and movies.

Foxs submission argues that six years after the aborted 2011 bid, which Murdoch abandoned due to the phone-hacking scandal at his UK newspapers, the media landscape has changed beyond recognition with the rise of digital rivals such as Google and Facebook and news distributors and new outlets such as Vice, Buzzfeed and Huffington Post while traditional newspaper sales decline.

We are confident that the transaction is in the public interest and will stand all tests, said Fox, in a letter from Jeffrey Palker, the companys deputy general counsel, submitted to the DCMS on Wednesday.

In a carefully timed charm offensive at a conference last week which included Sharon White, the chief executive of Ofcom, James Murdoch argued that we are in an era of ultimate plurality, where choices, sources, and access are multiplied, even from where we were only five years ago.

Murdoch, who has insisted that he will not have to offer to spin-off Sky News as he offered in 2010 to quell plurality concerns, has pledged to keep Fox News at arms length and continue to broadcast news under the Sky brand maintaining its excellent record of compliance with the Ofcom broadcasting code.

Ofcom has the right at any time to order a fit and proper investigation into Murdoch, earlier this week shadow culture secretary Tom Watson urged the regulator to conduct the test in a debate in the House of Commons.

An Ofcom investigation found in 2012 that Sky remained a fit and proper owner of a broadcast licence, but published a scathing assessment of James Murdoch then chairman of Sky and head of the UK newspaper business finding that his conduct repeatedly fell short of the standards expected.

[Fox] takes compliance matters extremely seriously and is proud of the transformation of its corporate governance and of the arrangements it has put in place since [the phone hacking scandal], said Palker. In fact, the level of scrutiny and controls we have imposed around the world were informed by the lessons learned in 2011. [Fox] is confident any analysis Ofcom may be requested to undertake will confirm this.

Ofcom has had a chance to air any concerns about Murdoch and investigate his role when news broke last January that he would be returning as Sky chairman and, significantly, after the highly publicised revolt at the Skys annual meeting when more than 50% of independent shareholders voted against his re-appointment.

Fox supporters argue that given Ofcom has previously considered Foxs 39% stake in Sky to be the same as controlling the pay-TV company such as when it told Sky to sell down its stake in ITV in 2010 it is hard to justify the move to 100% control now as triggering a fit and proper test of Murdoch if his return as chairman was unchallenged.

Fox also argues that since the aborted bid News Corp has split into two different companies comprised of its newspaper assets in one, and its TV and film assets in the other, with independent boards.

The separation of [Fox] from News Corporation is a significant consideration and a material change from analysis carried out by Ofcom when News Corporation sought to acquire the remaining shares in [Sky] in 2010, said Palker.

However, opponents argue that the Murdoch family will still be the ultimate owner of both newspaper and TV assets in the UK and that will give them to much control over UK news media.

Conspicuous by their absence are submissions from the unlikely alliance of media companies that banded together during the last bid to oppose Murdoch, which included the BBC, BT, Channel 4 and the publishers of the Guardian, Telegraph and Mirror. At this stage none are thought to have made a submission to the DCMS, although this could change assuming the deal is referred to Ofcom.

Part of Avaazs submission includes a legal view from George Peretz, who has recently represented campaigners mounting a legal challenge to Brexit, arguing that Bradley should add the fit and proper test to the Enterprise Act 2002 alongside the existing public interest criteria.

Separately, David Puttnam has introduced an amendment to the digital economy bill, which would subject all media takeovers to the fit-and-proper test and which is expected to be debated in the House of Lords.

This comes after a group of cross-party politicians including Ed Miliband demanded that the regulator launched an immediate review of whether James Murdoch met such a test to hold a UK broadcasting licence.

Bradley, who has said she has not yet committed to issuing a public intervention notice to refer the deal to Ofcom, will make her final decision next week.

Murdochs attempt to grow his media empire in Britain is against the public interest, said Alex Wilks, campaign director at Avaaz. Karen Bradley needs to ensure they are subject to maximum scrutiny as she decides whether to hand them more control.

Former culture secretary John Whittingdale advised his successor to refer the Sky takeover bid to media regulator Ofcom. Asked why, at a media industry conference in Oxford, he said because there would be a huge political row if I didnt.

Whittingdale, who has made no secret of his support for Murdochs ownership of the media company, indicated he did not believe the bid by Fox should be blocked. If anything, he said, the media industry had become more competitive with the prominence of social media groups such as Facebook or Google, which lessened the dominance of the Murdoch-owned media.

In a statement, 21st Century Fox said it did not believe the deal would result in insufficient plurality in the UK media. 21CF welcomes a thorough and thoughtful regulatory review. We believe this transaction is in the interest of the UK, its creative economy and its consumers, it said. For the past 30 years, 21CF and Sky have been broadcasters of good standing in the UK, a responsibility we take seriously.

The UK has a thriving creative and media sector that is becoming increasingly more plural and we are confident that this transaction would not result in there being insufficient plurality in the UK. We will continue to work with all relevant regulatory authorities in assisting their reviews.

Go here to read the rest:
Murdoch Sky bid is 'serious threat to our democracy' - The Guardian

By David Decosimo By David Decosimo March 8 at 6:00 AM

David Decosimo teaches religion, ethics and politics at Boston University and is currently writing a book on freedom and domination in Christianity and Islam.

From his hateful tweets and provocative rhetoric to his new executive order banning Muslims and refugees all over again, President Trump is driven by the idea that Islam is a threat to what makes us American.

Trump has declared that Islam hates us. There is, he says, an unbelievable hatred. Stephen K. Bannon, one of his chief advisers, claims that we are in an outright war against Islam and doubts whether Muslims that are shariah-adherent can actually be part of a society where you have the rule of law and are a democratic republic. He believes Islam is much darker than Nazism and seems to agree with HUD Secretary Ben Carson that Islam is a religion of domination.

But Trump and his administration could learn a thing or two about American values such as freedom and equality from the religion and people they so hate.

In Islams founding story, after Muhammads death, it was unclear who would lead the nascent Muslim community. Typically, succession disputes make for great drama. This one, however, was more C-SPAN than Game of Thrones. Rather than intrigue or bloodshed, the believers pursued democracy. Only by the peoples consent, they reckoned, could a ruler justly be named and a community freely governed. They chose Abu Bakr, one of Muhammads companions. His inauguration speech, according to one of Muhammads earliest biographers Ibn Ishaq, was brief (though were not sure how big the crowd was). It went something like this: Im no better than any of you. Only obey me if I do right. Otherwise, resist me. Loyalty means speaking truth. Flattery is treason. No human, but God alone is your lord.

Abu Bakr sought to guard the people against domination by making himself accountable to them. The people obliged, securing their liberty. They could call him out at any time, and he had to listen. He even had to ask their permission for new clothes. His successor Umar carried the legacy forward. Publicly rebuked by a woman for overstepping the law, Umar responded: That woman is right, and I am wrong! It seems that all people have deeper wisdom and insight than me.

This spirit of accountability and liberty would become enshrined as a religious duty in Islam, though as with any tradition, these values are not always upheld. Nonetheless, every Muslim has the obligation to command right and forbid wrong, correcting and resisting any who betray justice, rulers included. That Abu Bakr and Umar are paradigms of good Islamic rule for well over 1 billion Sunni Muslims tells us something about this traditions love for freedom.

So does the 12th-century theologian al-Ghazali, one of Islams most beloved figures. In his most famous political work, an open letter to a young sultan, Ghazali famously defends a golden rule of liberty: The fundamental principle is treat people in a way in which, if you were subject and another were Sultan, you would deem right that you yourself be treated. Nothing a ruler would not himself endure has any place in politics. While sin against God can be forgiven, violation of this rule cannot: Anything involving injustice to mankind will not in any circumstance be overlooked at the resurrection. Ghazali tells rulers that on judgment day, not God but the people will determine their fate: The harshest torment will be for those who rule arbitrarily. He sounds striking similar to James Madison writing in Federalist 57, for whom rulers will be compelled to anticipate the moment when their exercise of power is reviewed, and they must descend to the level from which they were raised. Only in Ghazalis vision, the tyrant descends to hell.

Of course, like their Western counterparts, many Muslim regimes fail to honor this vision of liberty. But it is women and men like Malala Yousafzai, Humayun Khan and the hopeful youths who filled Tahrir Square who are faithful to the best of Islam, not the likes of the Islamic State, al-Qaeda and Saudi princes.

For Islam and the American founders alike, freedom is about protection from arbitrary power and rule by law, not the caprices of men. Theirs is a vision where citizens stand not in slavish deference to masters but on equal terms with all. This vision animates our whole system of governance. It was this vision Lincoln endorsed when he wrote, in words that echo Ghazali: As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy. And it was this vision Sojourner Truth, the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and Harvey Milk invoked when they each demanded that equality before the law be still further expanded so that it would eventually include not just straight white men but everyone.

This vision is under threat in a way it rarely has been in our history. It is not under threat by Islam, but by Donald Trump and his administration.

Trumps first Muslim ban was an act of brazen, unconstrained power and barely concealed animus. The second ban is more of the same. The blessing of the first was just how blatantly it betrayed our deepest values. The danger of the second is its attempt to conceal its dominating and bigoted aims. No serious observer thinks these bans make us any safer. Instead, they seek to circumvent rule of law, roll back libertys benefit and wage Bannons war with Islam. They give Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Department of Homeland Security and other agents discretionary power to decide on a whim whether to sever families, deport refugees and detain Muslims. And they make Trump and his cronies unaccountable arbiters of who really loves the very American values the administration is busy betraying.

Trump wants to return America to its former greatness. But when it comes to freedom, Ghazaliand Abu Bakr have far more in common with Madison and Lincoln than with terrorists and tyrants who claim Islams mantle. For that matter, they have far more in common with this countrys great lovers of liberty than does the current president. So, instead of banning Muslims, Trump should listen to them: He might learn something about liberty and equality, two values he seems not to have learned to love from our own nations history or the Constitution he swore to uphold.

The rest is here:
What Islam could teach Donald Trump about democracy and freedom - Washington Post

Calling Congress is the best way to get your message across.

A woman looks at her phone as she walks past an electric light board designed as the US national flag in New York's Times Square on Feb. 7, 2017. (Photo by Jewel Samad/AFP/Getty Images)

Millions of Americans are in despair. They know our democracy is in great peril from plutocrats, organized groups using dark money to control Congress and ideologues determined to rip up Social Security, Medicare and much more. The law of the jungle is being imposed.

We can stop this. We can break the grip of powerful individuals on Congress and restore democracy of, by and for the people. But if we want to win, you and I must mobilize. A new approach, FiftyNifty.org, makes this not just possible, but actually easy.

How is any individual citizen supposed to impact a political decision-making process that largely takes place behind closed doors? The answer is obvious: Let your congressional representatives know what makes you angry.

Every member of the House is up for re-election in November 2018, and one-third of the Senate is too. In the past few weeks we have seen what happens when we confront our representatives in town hall meetings. They hide or run. They also start to get the message: Listen to us!

But in-person confrontation is hard to sustain. People have jobs, families and community obligations. Some Republicans already decline to hold genuine town halls. In these tense times, calling Congress is the best way to get your message across.

Yes, Congress has learned to dodge individual calls. But what if you are not the only one expressing a view? Imagine the impact if you can reach out to people you know throughout the country and convince them to together become a mighty chorus-by-phone. Now you have built your own campaign; even perhaps a crusade.

How one callers network can spread the activism bug. (Image: FiftyNifty.org)

This might sound like a lot of work, but a new website created by Andy Lippman and his Viral Communications Group at MIT makes it quick, easy and actually fun to build effective pressure on Congress in exactly this way. FiftyNifty.org uses a game-like structure to encourage people not just to call their own senators and representatives, but also to persuade family and friends elsewhere in the country to do the same.

The website lets you see where in the country you have made connections and how many calls have been made. The maps you build and family-tree graphics that track your progress are very cool. (I am an adviser to this group, which is an MIT research project with very strong privacy and data protections. All the hard work is done by Andy, Leopold Mebazaa, Travis Rich and Jasmin Rubinovitz.)

Building connections and mobilizing your social network across state borders to call Congress! will help restore American democracy in five ways.

First, phone calls send a valuable signal to members of Congress. Facebook comments are deleted, emails are ignored, and now we hear false claims that angry town halls were not attended by actual constituents. But congressional staffers still answer the phones and they typically ask your name and address, primarily (and quite reasonably) to verify you are a constituent. According to a former congressional staffer:

What representatives and staffers want to hear is the individual impact of your individual story.

And, understandably:

I couldnt listen to peoples stories for six to eight hours a day and not be profoundly impacted by them.

These days many people do not like to make phone calls. But this is exactly what makes phone calls so valuable it tells politicians how intensely you feel and how much youre engaged about an issue. In fact, you should really call someone in Congress every day about an issue that matters to you. Concerted, consistent, polite pressure is best. You are signaling on what basis you will vote in just under two years.

Second, if members of Congress ignore the phone calls they receive, they will pay for this at the ballot box. Many Republican members of the House have relatively safe seats, but even they should fear the potential wave election that often happens two years after a presidential election.

Get out of your local comfort zone and ask every individual in your dispersed network: What do you care about?

Asking senators and representatives to act and then holding them accountable is entirely fair. In fact, it is precisely how this democracy was designed to operate.

Third, to win at FiftyNifty, you need to think about how people in other parts of the country view the issues of the day. Get out of your local comfort zone and ask every individual in your dispersed network: What do you care about? Mobilize your friends around what matters to them and in ways that make sense to you. Fight back against all forms of geographic polarization. (The name FiftyNifty comes from the classic song that helps children learn about our country.)

Andy Lippman has made fourphone calls himself, all in Massachusetts. But he has inspired 88 phone calls in 17 other states. Ive made two phone calls and encouraged other people to make a total of 78 calls across 11 states. (Im currently in second place, behind Andy, according to the leaderboard. If you would like me to overtake him, please register using this link, which is specific to me.)

Fourth, FiftyNifty allows people in gerrymandered districts to have a say. You can only vote where you live, but you can talk to people anywhere.

And there are at least 4 million citizens residents of the District of Columbia and US territories such as Puerto Rico who have no voting representative in Congress. Residents of those places can either spend their time complaining or focus on connecting with folks who live somewhere that does have full congressional representation. Get your friends to make the call.

Fifth, we need to push back against the abuse of technology and automation in politics. The last 10 years have seen the rise of trolls (aiming to drown you out with noise and abuse) as well as bots (short for robots, i.e., fake personas) throughout the internet. Now we have algorithms being applied to developing hate messages on Facebook and other media. The extreme right has become very sophisticated in this space including in the UKs Brexit referendum last year, in Trumps campaign and now in the French presidential election.

The best way to fight back is with real people making real phone calls. Artificial intelligence is getting smarter, but it cannot (yet) mimic a voter calling his or her representative with a personal message. Technological abuse is worse where the frictions are zero meaning in purely electronic communication.

Phone calls involve real effort and that is the point. Take back democracy from extremes and from the machines.

Make the phone call and mobilize your social network.

Continue reading here:
Restore American Democracy Mobilize Your National Network - BillMoyers.com

Dartmouth professor John Carey

What is the state of American democracy in the aftermath of the 2016 presidential election? A project founded by two Dartmouth professors asked more than 1,500 political scientists to weigh in.

The picture is sobering.

Advertisement

About 86 percent of those who took part in a survey by the Bright Line Watch project believe the United States met or mostly met an acceptable standard for free and fair elections. But only about half believe other branches could effectively check the power of the executive branch.

Metro Minute asked Dartmouth professor John Carey to reflect on the research. (Comments edited for length.)

What led you and your colleagues to start Bright Line Watch?

Get Fast Forward in your inbox:

Forget yesterday's news. Get what you need today in this early-morning email.

Most of us have done work outside of the US, so wed seen places were democracy has been stripped away. ... So, when we saw things we consider deviations from things wed consider usual behavioral norms, such as hyper-partisanship or political parties reluctant to investigate potential breaches in security happening here, we thought wed try and see what other people thought. You know, when its happening, theres no consensus that democracy is dying.

So just how healthy is American democracy?

Were in territory that Ive never seen before. Overall, I think were still good. ... But there have been worrying signs. Congresss lack of willingness to investigate Russias potential involvement in the election is troubling. If there is an outside power hacking communication of one candidate and the other candidate knew or endorsed it, that would be a huge deal. ... Were not trying to say that the president is trying to destroy democracy, but his election is a part of the deviations that weve been watching.

Whats next for your organization, and US democracy?

Were going to repeat the survey every quarter. We want to get a timeline of how things change. If we get the answers back in a year and theyre the same, that would make for a boring story, but it would be telling. However, if, in a year, our responses are wildly different, thats more concerning. ... While Im less confident than I was five years ago, Im still betting on democracy. The data shows that there is overwhelming confidence in the integrity of our elections and in freedom of expression and speech. Thats reassuring.

Read the rest here:
A check-up for US democracy - The Boston Globe - The Boston Globe

When Turkeys Justice and Development Party (AKP) came to power in 2002, it generated considerable debate between those who saw its success as a potentially liberalizing force and critics who feared it would ultimately bring the end of Turkish democracy. Depending on who you spoke to, the AKP was poised to turn Turkey into either Sweden or Iran; to finally realize Ataturks vision of making the country modern and Western or permanently destroy it.

Today, a decade and a half later, the future of Turkish democracy certainly looks grim. With President Recep Tayyip Erdogan now leading a heavy-handed campaign to further enhance his powers through a constitutional referendum in April, every day seems to provide new evidence that the partys earliest critics have been vindicated.

But looking back at the AKPs rise and transformation, this seems a bit like concluding that the boy who cried wolf was vindicated at the end of the fable when the wolf finally arrived. The alarmism that accompanied the AKPs rise prompted a series of undemocratic interventions that only strengthened its hold on power, furthering the partys descent into authoritarianism, and the countrys along with it. Military and legal threats against the AKP in its early years bolstered the partys support among loyalists and skeptics alike. Those threats also helped confirm a narrative of righteous persecution that Erdogan has continued to draw on as he transformed the party from a potentially liberalizing force into the nightmare it has become today.

During its early years in power, the AKP won liberal acclaim as it challenged the entrenched influence of Turkish military, expanded cultural rights for Kurds and promoted accession to the European Union. In retrospect, it is easy to identify champions of the AKP who were excessive in their enthusiasm for the party or their confidence in its liberal rhetoric. Yet for others, support for the AKP was more measured. If Erdogan was using democracy instrumentally he infamously claimed democracy was like a train from which you disembark when you reach your stop many liberals were equally instrumental in their support for him. In the early days, when the AKP itself appeared weak, it made sense to think the party could help clear away the undemocratic forces in Turkish society while still being constrained by political institutions, and, ultimately, voters. In 2003, the AKP was also more than just Erdogan. At the time, it included a far more diverse coalition of business interests, liberals, and democratically-minded religious conservatives.

Whats more, Turkeys political landscape in the early 2000s offered few liberal alternatives to the AKP. The countrys main opposition party, the CHP, cast its lot with the military, often seeming more concerned about secularism than democracy and more comfortable with coups than headscarves. The ultra-nationalist (not to say overtly racist or quasi-fascist) MHP, meanwhile, appeared a lost cause, while the countrys Kurdish party remained in the thrall of PKK-leader Abdullah Ocalans violent and authoritarian brand of Kurdish nationalism.

Given this backdrop, one could be clear-eyed about Erdogans faults and still see the AKP as the best of a bunch of bad options. In early 2004, U.S. Ambassador Eric Edelman wrote a cable (subsequently published by Wikileaks) in which he presciently detailed Erdogans overbearing pride, unbridled ambition, authoritarian loner streak, and overweening desire to stay in power. Still, the cable went on to conclude that despite these manifest faults, Erdogan was, at the time, the only partner capable of advancing toward the U.S. vision of a successful, democratic Turkey integrated into Europe.

Whatever hope there was for this vision, the behavior of the AKPs fiercest opponents over the ensuing decade was not conducive to realizing it. The Turkish military in particular did its part to ensure that the AKP would maintain its image as a champion of democracy or at least the liberal democrats lesser evil well after that ceased to be the case. Given the Turkish militarys history four coups in as many decades, the most recent in 1997 against the AKPs Islamist predecessor it already faced considerable suspicion; its response to the AKP only made things worse. Despite having the wisdom to recognize that it lacked both the domestic and international support for an overt coup, the countrys top brass expressed just enough interest in trying to force the AKP from power to bolster the partys popularity and confirm widespread suspicion that the military itself still posed the greatest threat to Turkish democracy.

Details of the militarys activity in 2003-2004 are still shrouded in mystery, but what evidence subsequently emerged was damning enough to cast a sinister shadow over subsequent developments. In 2007, a Turkish magazine published leaked entries from a diary kept by Admiral Ozden Ornek, commander of the Turkish naval forces during the 2003-2004 period. Orneks diary described high-level discussions of a military-led campaign to foment unrest through civil-society mobilization, anti-AKP propaganda and mass demonstrations as means to bring down Erdogan and his party. The authenticity of some parts of the diary were subsequently disputed and there was no evidence the military ever acted on these plans. But the overall picture it painted of the militarys thinking at the time was, by many accounts, accurate and helped damage public perceptions of the military going forward.

In the following years, the AKP would face a series of challenges that further rallied supporters against what appeared to be the fundamentally anti-democratic forces resisting them. In 2007, a crisis emerged over who would fill Turkeys then largely symbolic office of President. With Erdogan widely seen as too controversial, the AKP put forward co-founder Abdullah Gul. Amidst a heated debate that often focused on Guls wifes headscarf, the Turkish military issued a late night memorandum on its website stating it was watching with concern and was resolute in its commitment to defend secular principles. Among other anti-secular activities that caught the militarys eye, the memorandum noted with alarm that in several elementary schools, female students in head scarves had been singing religious songs. While the objectives of the militarys statement remain opaque, in a country that had already had one coup-by-memorandum, citizens were quick to perceive an explicit threat. And they responded defiantly. Several months later, voters went to the polls and returned the AKP to power with 46.5 percent of the vote, a 13 percent increase over its total in the previous election.

The next year, Turkeys head prosecutor launched a court case to close the AKP and ban 71 of its leading members from politics. While cases against previous Islamist parties had regularly succeeded, this one failed, defeated by one vote in Turkeys 11-member constitutional court. But despite the outcome, the case helped confirm in the minds of many AKP supporters the implacable nature of the political establishment they were up against.

For Erdogan of course, this perception would pay lasting political dividends. Having succeeded in maintaining its hold on power in the face of undemocratic resistance, Erdogan built on this narrative to maintain support for his own increasingly undemocratic behavior.

After surviving the closure case, the AKP went on to consolidate control through a series of trials that left many military leaders and prominent secular critics in jail. The trials began in 2008 as an investigation into a sprawling coup plot called the Ergenekon conspiracy. Over the following years, it emerged that the real conspiracy was the case itself. Orchestrated by members of the Gulen movement in the police and judiciary, the case relied on forged evidence and selective leaks, manipulated to target opponents of Gulen and the AKP. Yet while often worrying about the prosecutions abuses, many liberal observers continued to treat it as a necessary step in breaking the militarys hold on politics. The driving force behind this deeply mistaken calculation was the assumption that where theres a history of smoke, there must also be fire.

In 2011 and 2012, Erdogan restructured the AKP to empower his own loyalists while forcing out more liberal members and supporters of his rival, Abdullah Gul. Then, as he consolidated his hold over the party, he succeeded in discrediting the growing opposition he faced by emphasizing, accurately or not, its undemocratic character. When widespread urban protests against the government broke out in 2013, for example, they were viewed with a degree of sympathy by some of the AKPs more liberal members. Yet Erdogan, drawing implausibly but effectively on the Turkish militarys previous plans for instigating mass protests, presented the popular demonstrations as an organized conspiracy seeking to topple the AKP. Months later, prosecutors affiliated with the Gulen movement which had fallen out with the government in an increasingly naked power struggle moved to arrest several prominent members of the AKP and their children on corruption charges. In this case, though, the Gulenists history of secretive and illegal activity enabled Erdogan to portray the arrests as part of another coup plot, convincing his supporters to overlook the inconvenient fact that the charges themselves were probably true.

Of course, Erdogans efforts to play the victim received ultimate vindication last summer, when elements within the military really did launch a coup. In its aftermath, Erdogans popularity increased dramatically and his loyalists launched a wide-ranging series of purges that effectively forestalled opposition from rivals within his own party. After years during which observers hoped more democratically-minded figures like Abdullah Gul or former Prime Minster Ahmet Davutoglu might finally challenge Erdogan and set the AKP back on a more moderate path, the coup seems to have put an end to this possibility. Amidst conspiratorial accusations that Gul and Davutoglu were themselves in league with the coup plotters, Erdogan could almost certainly now get away with having both men jailed if they ever seriously threatened him.

Whether Erodgan succeeds in enhancing his powers through a coming referendum or not, his position seems secure for the foreseeable future. This is a result not only of his ample ambition and political skill, but also of the missteps of opponents who tried to resist him the wrong way.

Nick Danforth is a Senior Policy Analyst at the Bipartisan Policy Center. He completed a PhD in Turkish history at Georgetown University and has written widely on Middle Eastern politics.

Image:Miguel Carminati, CC

View original post here:
Tutored by the Tragedy of Turkish Democracy - War on the Rocks