Thursday, May 10, 2012

If not Kurds, who? If not now, when?

In 1960, ethnic Turks of Turkey, in the name of both Turks and Kurds, maintained that a balanced constitution for a neighboring country hosting a major ethnic minority circa 15-20%, is a Presidential Republic with a majority President and a minority Vice-President, both with the right of final veto, with equal political status for the minority community, where all aspects of the Republic are bilingual (including the currency, passports, IDs, etc.), where the minority is constitutionally guaranteed representation in government structures far exceeding its population strength, with ethnically divided parliamentary chambers, municipalities, courts, etc.
Even today, Turkey's [ethnic Turks'] fundamental positions in addressing the so-called "Cyprus problem" remains the same, based on [a] political & cultural equality between majority and minority & [b] ethnic separation.

I am dumbfounded.

If Turkey's Kurds don't ask the majority Turks to apply their own philosophy inside Turkey too, why should anyone? If not now, that a constitutional overhaul is debated, then when?

All Time Popular Posts

Last 7 Days Popular Posts


Turkey's Kurds & Cyprus' tCypriots

As either unitary state or federation solutions are discussed as replacements to Cyprus' 1960 and Turkey's 1923 unworkable constitutions, should we abide by "if a right is a right too many for Turkey's Kurdish community (circa 23% of population) then that right is a right too many for Cyprus' tCypriot community too (circa 15%), and vice versa." Is the adoption of this fair logic the catalyst to securing just solutions for both UN countries.