Prague, July 21 (CTK) – Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has for many years acted as former Czechoslovak Communist Klement Gottwald who also played at democracy in 1945-48, but at the decisive moment, he shifted the country towards communism, Bohumil Pecinka writes in weekly Reflex out yesterday.
He writes that the difference between Gottwald and Erdogan is that the latter is gradually shifting his country towards Islam and that he has successfully lied to the West for many years that he invented “Islamic democracy.”
Gottwald was former Czechoslovakia’s president from 1948 until his death in 1953.
Gottwald, for his part, invented “people’s democracy,” or an animal of which all speak, but which does not exist in reality, Pecinka writes.
He writes that it was fascinating to follow the live broadcast of the coup in Turkey from Friday evening until Saturday morning. It was the best media-covered coup in humankind’s history.
Yet, one refused to believe that everything was happening so as it was offered for believing, Pecinka writes.
It is not possible that Erdogan did not know of the prepared coup given the fact that a majority of the military and police tops took his side. He probably only did not know the date, Pecinka writes.
When Erdogan found out that the coup does not have a good setting and that also Western politicians took a negative stance on it, he decided to make a move the Communists made after their coup in Czechoslovakia in February 1948, Pecinka writes.
He writes that he launched extensive purges on all levels of the state and security forces and took the country away from both democracy and the West, Pecinka writes.
He writes that both camps were most probably competing behind the scenes for many months. Erdogan was losing the West’s support and made several shocking political turnabouts.
He apologised to President Vladimir Putin for the downing of a Russian plane, which was followed by personal phone calls between the two heads of state and the foreign ministers’ meetings, Pecinka writes.
He writes that this was followed by Erdogan’s statement that Syrian President Bashir Assad is not an unacceptable figure, which was a hundred and eighty degree turn.
Erdogan must have been motivated by the effort to protect his back at a time when his traditional allies were leaving him, Pecinka writes.
At the same time, bomb attacks were reported in Turkey, tension was rising in the country and it was clear that something must happen. The coup and counter-coup followed, in which Erdogan proved to be a more adroit player, Pecinka writes.
He writes that Erdogan will never forget those who brought about the situation where he was to be removed from power. From his point of view, they were Western politicians headed by the United States.
This will probably result in that Turkey will be gradually changing its allies after it spent half a century on the side of the West, Pecinka writes.
He writes that this is a failure of Western politicians headed by Barack Obama, who were uncritically accepting Erdogan’s tactical talk about “Islamic democracy,” while in fact he was building a religious autocratic state.
It is a failure of European politicians, headed by German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who bet on Erdogan as a man who will stop migrants on his territory, Pecinka writes.
Erdogan feels that Europe has betrayed him and he holds the keys to its future migrant crisis. Unless this situation prompts Europe to protect the Schengen border the European Union has no right to its existence, Pecinka writes.