有关土耳其的一些介绍，有助于分析该国近年的一些变化，以及对某些国际事态的反映。中文翻译在后半部分:
Chinese translation from bing.com in the second half.
[From Russia to Venezuela, the strongmen who have destroyed democratic institutions won high office at the ballot box]
Link to the original:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/05/how-authoritarians-like-erdogan-manipulate-elections/588895/
hen Recep Erdoğan was first elected prime minister of Turkey, in 2003, he vowed to respect the country’s democratic institutions, and to vacate office if he ever lost the public’s trust. The reality of Erdoğan’s rule has been rather more bleak. Although international newspapers and magazines initially portrayed him as a democratic reformer, he systematically expanded his powers and purged opponents from top positions in the army, the civil service, and the country’s educational institutions. When former allies tried to oust him in a coup in the summer of 2016, he used the occasion to consolidate his hold over the country. Thanks to the vast emergency powers he claimed within days of the failed putsch, he was able to dismiss tens of thousands of civil servants he considered politically unreliable, and to jail some of the country’s most prominent journalists.
But even as the dictatorial nature of Erdoğan’s regime became apparent, and the freedom to criticize him more constrained, Turkey continued to hold multi-party elections, which gave the opposition some ability to compete at the ballot box. In June 2018, Erdoğan won 53 percent of the vote in an election many observers said was tainted by violent attacks on the opposition; from then on, Erdoğan styled himself president of Turkey.
This election seemed to allow Erdoğan to eat his cake and have it too: On the one hand, the control he exerted over key institutions, such as the country’s electoral commission, had limited the risk the election posed to his rule. On the other hand, the election helped to shore up his legitimacy at home and abroad. Even though observers from the OSCE to Freedom House emphasized that the election was not free and fair, international leaders including Angela Merkel and Donald Trump publicly congratulated Erdoğan on his “victory” at the polls. As Timur Kuran, a Turkish expert on authoritarian regimes, put it, Erdoğan sought to combine “the illusion of a contested election” with “a predetermined outcome.”
Link: Read: How Erdoğan made Turkey authoritarian again
The tremendous power Erdoğan now holds makes it all the more remarkable that a united opposition was, last month, able to gain an unexpected set of victories in the country’s municipal elections: Exploiting anger at Turkey’s growing economic crisis, and fielding a new crop of candidates who are both charismatic and conciliatory, the opposition pulled off two highly symbolic upsets, winning control of the country’s capital, Ankara, as well as its largest city, Istanbul.
As a result, Erdoğan has, for the first time since the failed coup three years ago, faced a real trade-off: Would he allow the election results to stand, thereby acknowledging the public’s growing discontent with his rule? Or would he exploit his hold over Turkey’s institutions to have the election annulled, making it blatantly clear to anybody who cared to look that Turkey is no longer a democracy?
For much of the 20th century, the most acute threat to democracy came from the barrel of a gun. When democratic systems collapsed, it was usually because tanks commandeered by the leader of an openly antidemocratic movement rolled up in front of the country’s parliament or presidential palace. Javier Cercas vividly describes such a coup attempt in the opening pages of The Anatomy of a Moment, his account of a failed putsch against Spanish democracy in 1981:
Pistol in hand, Lieutenant Colonel of the Civil Guard Antonio Tejero calmly walks up the steps of the dais, passes behind the Secretary and stands besides the Speaker Landelino Lavilla, who looks at him incredulously. The lieutenant colonel shouts: “Nobody move!”, and a couple of spellbound seconds follow during which nothing happens and no one moves and nothing seems to be going to happen to anyone, except silence … Four nearby shouts, distinct and indisputable, then break the spell: someone shouts: “Silence!:”; someone shouts: “Nobody move!”; someone shouts, “Get down on the floor!”; someone shouts: “Everyone down on the floor!.” The chamber rushes to obey.
Because it makes for such striking theater, the kind of open attack on democracy that Cercas describes has had a long-lasting hold on the political imagination. But in the 21st century, coups have become rarer. From Russia to Venezuela, the strongmen who have destroyed democratic institutions won high office at the ballot box. Far from openly attacking democracy, they have tended to argue that they, and they alone, truly represent the people.
Link: Read: The myth of authoritarian competence
Granted, autocratic regimes from the German “Democratic” Republic to the “Democratic” Republic of Congo also tried to create some illusion of public legitimacy through “elections.” But whatever propagandistic purpose their ballot dramas may have served, they were far too ham-fisted to fool a domestic audience. By and large, only a single party was allowed to present itself in elections, which usually ended with 99 percent of the voting public expressing its deep devotion to the dictator.
By contrast, the new crop of authoritarian leaders is much more invested in retaining the appearance of a genuine democratic mandate. As a result, they have to engage in a more complicated political calculus: They have to give the opposition enough of a chance to compete in the elections to look credible to a significant segment of the population. But they must also capture political institutions such as electoral commissions to a sufficient extent to ensure that the people can’t actually boot them out of office.
As the recent developments in Turkey show, however, it may not be possible to sustain this equilibrium forever. Eventually, even governments that have effectively abolished the freedom of the press risk growing so unpopular that they have to resort to more blatant ways of rigging the vote.
“We are thirsty for democracy,” Ekrem İmamoğlu told a downcast crowd three weeks after being elected mayor of Istanbul. “No one can stop what the people want.”
But by the time he held his inspiring speech, İmamoğlu knew all too well that, at least for the time being, Erdoğan already had. After using his control over most of the country’s media to spread the insane conspiracy theory that a powerless opposition had somehow been able to falsify the outcome of the election, Erdoğan went on to use his control over the country’s judiciary to cancel its result. Citing supposed irregularities, the electoral commission announced on Monday that Istanbul would hold new elections in June.
The announcement marks a fundamental turning point in Turkey’s political history: It is now impossible for any reasonable observer to keep denying reality. A country whose president has the power to annul elections when he doesn’t like their outcome has clearly become a dictatorship. From now on, anybody who still insists on calling Turkey a democracy, or treating its elections as a fair barometer of public opinion, is a liar or a fool.
Link: Read: The new authoritarians are waging war on women
While the announcement dispels any remaining doubt about the current status of Turkey’s democracy, it also raises big questions about its future. In the next days, İmamoğlu will need to decide whether to boycott the repeat election in June. If he does, he’ll hand Erdoğan the power he craves. If he doesn’t, he’ll lend legitimacy to an election he likely cannot win. If it’s heads, Erdoğan wins. If it’s tails, İmamoğlu loses.
But although Erdoğan is likely to retain control of Istanbul in the short run, he too now faces a much more difficult future. Until now, large segments of the Turkish population believed his professions that he would leave office of his own accord if he ever lost the people’s trust. Even his more obviously repressive moves, such as the jailing of scores of journalists, had a slither of democratic legitimacy: In the wake of the 2016 putsch, some of Erdoğan’s supporters were willing to believe that the writers he decried as “terrorists” really were part of a dangerous plot to unseat the elected government. Now Erdoğan’s insistence that he represents the true will of the people is, even in the ears of his erstwhile supporters, likely to ring hollow.
Erdoğan’s loss of democratic legitimacy does not imply that he is about to lose power. As the long history of dictatorships demonstrates, many people are willing to support a leader who openly opposes democratic institutions—and many autocrats are able to stay in office for years or decades after they have become deeply unpopular. But it does suggest that his rule will, from now on, be based on a much more precarious foundation. With his claim to a popular mandate gone for good, Erdoğan will likely face an even more determined opposition—and need to resort to ever more naked oppression to stay in power.
========================
中文翻译（Chinese translation）：
???如何操纵选举
从俄罗斯到委内瑞拉,摧毁民主体制的强人赢得了投票箱中的高职位
[!–更多]
2003年,埃尔多安首次当选土耳其总理,他发誓要尊重国家的民主体制,如果他失去公众的信任,他将卸任。埃尔多安统治的现实更加暗淡。虽然国际报纸和杂志最初将他描绘成一个民主改革者,但他有计划地扩大权力,将反对者从军队、公务员和国家教育机构的高级职位中清除出来。2016 年夏天,当前盟友试图在政变中将他赶下台时,他利用这一机会巩固了对这个国家的控制。多亏了他在失败几天后声称拥有的巨大紧急权力,他解雇了数以万计的公务员,他认为政治上不可靠,并监禁了该国一些最杰出的记者。
但是,尽管埃尔多安政权的独裁性质变得明显,批评他的自由更加有限,土耳其仍继续举行多党选举,这给了反对派在投票箱中竞争的能力。2018 年 6 月,埃尔多安在一次选举中赢得了 53% 的选票,许多观察家称这次选举受到反对派暴力袭击的影响;从那时起,埃尔多安自封为土耳其总统。
这次选举似乎让埃尔多安吃他的蛋糕,也吃蛋糕:一方面,他对国家选举委员会等关键机构的控制限制了选举给他的统治带来的风险。另一方面,这次选举有助于巩固他在国内外的合法性。尽管欧安组织自由之家的观察员强调这次选举不是自由和公正的,但包括安吉拉·默克尔和唐纳德·特朗普在内的国际领导人公开祝贺埃尔多安在投票中取得”胜利”。正如土耳其独裁政权专家铁木尔·库兰所说,埃尔多安试图将”有争议的选举的假象”与”预先确定的结果”结合起来。
链接:阅读:埃尔多安如何让土耳其再次独裁
埃尔多安现在拥有的巨大权力使得上个月团结的反对派能够在该国市政选举中取得意想不到的胜利,这更加引人注目:利用对土耳其日益严重的经济危机的愤怒,并派出新的候选人既有魅力又和解,反对派摆脱了两个极具象征意义的不安,赢得了该国首都安卡拉及其最大城市伊斯坦布尔的控制权。
因此,埃尔多安自三年前政变失败以来首次面临真正的权衡:他是否会允许选举结果成立,从而承认公众对他的统治日益不满？或者,他会利用他对土耳其体制的控制,使选举被废除,让那些愿意看土耳其不再是民主国家的人明目张胆地明白？
在20世纪的大部分时间里,对民主最严重的威胁来自枪管。当民主制度崩溃时,通常是因为坦克被公开反民主运动的领导人指挥,在本国议会或总统府前滚滚而来。哈维尔·塞尔卡斯在《一瞬间的剖析》的开头页生动地描述了这种政变企图,他叙述了1981年西班牙民主的失败:
手持手枪,国民警卫队安东尼奥·特耶罗中校平静地走上雏菊的台阶,经过秘书后面,站在议长兰杰利诺·拉维利亚旁边,后者难以置信地看着他。中校喊道:”没有人动!”附近的四个呼喊,截然不同,然后打破咒语:有人喊道:”沉默!:;有人喊道:”没人动!有人喊道,”趴在地上!有人喊道:”每个人都趴在地上!会议厅急于服从。
因为它造就了如此引人注目的戏剧,Cercas所描述的对民主的公开攻击,对政治想象力有着长久的把握。但在21世纪,政变已经变得更加罕见。从俄罗斯到委内瑞拉,摧毁民主体制的强人赢得了投票箱中的高职位。他们远非公开攻击民主,他们倾向于争辩说,他们,只有他们,才真正代表人民。
链接:阅读:威权能力的神话
诚然,从德国”民主”共和国到”刚果民主共和国”的独裁政权也试图通过”选举”制造一些公众合法性的假象。但是,不管他们的投票剧在宣传什么目的,他们太笨手笨共利,无法愚弄国内观众。总的来说,只有一个政党被允许在选举中出现,选举通常以99%的投票公众表达了对独裁者的深切奉献而告终。
相比之下,新的威权领导人在保持真正民主授权的外观方面投入了更多资金。因此,他们不得不进行更复杂的政治算计:他们必须给反对派足够的机会,让反对派在选举中竞争,让相当一部分人看起来可信。但是,它们还必须在足够程度上抓住选举委员会等政治机构,以确保人民实际上不会把他们赶出办公室。
然而,正如土耳其最近的事态发展所表明的那样,不可能永远维持这种平衡。最终,即使是实际上已经废除了新闻自由的政府,也面临越来越不受欢迎的风险,以至于他们不得不采取更公然的方式操纵选举。
“我们渴望民主,”埃克雷姆·奥马莫埃卢在当选伊斯坦布尔市长三周后对沮丧的人群说。”没有人能阻止人民想要的。
但是,当他发表鼓舞人心的演讲时,奥马莫埃卢非常清楚,至少目前埃尔多安已经拥有了。埃尔多安利用他对国内大多数媒体的控制,散布一种疯狂的阴谋论,即一个无能为力的反对派不知何故能够伪造选举结果,之后,埃尔多安继续利用他对国家司法机构的控制来取消选举结果。.选举委员会周一宣布,伊斯坦布尔将在6月举行新的选举。
这一宣布标志着土耳其政治史上的一个根本性转折点:现在任何理性的观察者都不可能继续否认现实。一个总统有权在不喜欢选举结果时宣布选举无效的国家显然已经变成了一个独裁国家。从现在开始,任何仍然坚持称土耳其为民主国家,或将土耳其选举视为公正的民意晴雨表的人,都是骗子或傻瓜。
链接:阅读:新的威权主义者正在对妇女发动战争
虽然这项声明消除了人们对土耳其民主现状的疑虑,但也引发了对其未来的重大质疑。在接下来的几天里,奥马莫卢将需要决定是否抵制6月的重复选举。如果他这样做,他会把渴望的权力交给埃尔多安。如果他不参加,他就会为他可能不能赢得的选举提供合法性。如果它的头,埃尔多安赢了。如果是尾巴,奥马莫鲁就会输。
不过,尽管埃尔多安可能在短期内继续控制伊斯坦布尔,但他现在也面临着更为艰难的未来。直到现在,大部分土耳其民众都相信他的职业,如果他失去人民的信任,他会主动离开办公室。甚至他更明显的镇压行动,如监禁数十名记者,也有民主合法性:在2016年普什事件之后,埃尔多安的一些支持者也愿意相信,他谴责为”恐怖分子”的作家确实是推翻民选政府的危险阴谋的一部分。现在,埃尔多安坚持他代表人民的真实意愿,即使在他昔日的支持者的耳边,也很可能显得空洞。
埃尔多安失去民主合法性并不意味着他即将失去权力。正如独裁统治的悠久历史所表明的,许多人愿意支持一个公开反对民主体制的领导人,许多独裁者在变得极不受欢迎之后,能够继续执政数年或几十年。但它确实表明,从现在起,他的统治将建立在一个更加不稳定的基础上。随着埃尔多安对民众授权的主张永远消失,埃尔多安可能会面临更加坚定的反对,并且需要诉诸更多的赤裸裸的压迫来继续掌权。