Best leader of a Muslim country at present?

I think Kemalism is a program, so there can be right and left wing variants of it. But overall package is not necessarily left-wing.

Of course, Atat�rk (and other Turkish nationalists) were anti-imperialist, since the imperialist hyenas were invading their country. But they had no intention to oppose Western imperialism once Turkey was free. They preferred to make peace with the West, and had no problems with the Arabs living under Western rule. I am not saying that they should have attacked the West, but they didn't even critisise the situation, except for Mosul, Kirkuk and Hatay, which they wanted to add to Turkey. Which anti-imperialist movement did they support outside of Turkey? 

Correct. Whereas ALL Socialists want (at least in theory) to achieve an economic system where there is NO private ownership of means of production. As I wrote above, the half-way system is left of an imaginary centre line, but not enough to make Kemalism left wing by itself.

Besides, Statism was adopted after the Liberal approach to economy failed, and state involvement in the economy became fashionable around the world after the Great Depression, due to the Soviet economic success. First choice of Atat�rk was Liberal Capitalism, like that of the West, not Statism. Even when Statism was adopted, it was not aimed at complete abolishment of private ownership even in theory, as you wrote.  

Quote 10th year anniversary march:

'T�rk'�z b�t�n ba�lardan �st�n olan ba�lar�z.

Tarihten �nce vard�k, tarihten sonra var�z!'

AKP is a lot like American neo-cons. A completely capital friendly, socially conservative bunch of losers who can't manage sh*t to save their own lives. Erdo�an is a big enemy of the poor people

Well I agree, AKP is inexperienced, and Erdogan should learn much much, but saying AKP is like neo-cons are false(I think) Their politics are mainly friendly to other countries, unlike neocons.

calling him as enemy of poor people is also wrong, his economic aim is a long-termed one and I also support his politics. Demirel helped farmers and workers(super emeklilik) much, but It didnt help Turkey.

He is excatly capital friendly that is true, so almost all advanced countries are capital friendly.

I wont call Erdogan good leader, but unfortunately he is only one we have. Prefer Baykar, Agar or others?we have not much alternatives.

 Anti-imperialism was one of the most important principles of Atat�rk. This contradict with your claims Beylerbeyi, because the civilized, Western countries were generally capitalist and imperialist

Not excatly true, If you look Ataturk past,you will see he is also supporter of young turk politics. His help to young turks against Abdulhamit 2 is much. He  is anti-imperialist only for his country. Infact Turkey borders at east is enlarged after ww1 and independence war.

 Statism, the economic principle of Atat�rk, does not avoid individual investors, but according to statism, the major and strategic industries must be in the state's possessions.

do he have other choice? there were not enough individual capital at Turkey.

Infact This is complately wrong, Ataturk nationalism made a lot asimilation.  If calling everyone(in Turkey) as Turk is a humanist nationalism, I dont know what is cruel nationalism.

Mira,

I doubt such a law (only for women) exists, never heard of it. Even if it does, it is more likely to be a remnant of the Swiss civil code Turkey adopted with the Republic, rather than the Sharia. One funny thing is that most of the laws Europeans are critisising in Turkey as non-European are in fact European laws adopted durign the 1920s and 1930s.

Murtaza,

Well, Turkey is in Afghanistan and they tried hard to join the USA in Iraq. I hardly call it friendly.

If you look at the economic policy of AKP, you'll see that they are always on the side of the capital, and never on the side of labour and the poor. Since AKP got in the power, the rich got richer Turkey and the poor got poorer. AKP's best friends are the IMF and TUSIAD-MUSIAD.  

Wealth distribution in Turkey used to be like Europe. The gap between the rich and the poor was not that much. Today we are like the USA. Tomorrow we will be like Brazil. The few rich people will live in protected luxury villages and the poor will be shot in the streets by the police.

I voted for one of the left wing parties. They are the real alternative.  Or we can always make a revolution.

My parents are both officials (memur) and yesterday I was at a state university talking to the professors, so I know that I am talking about. If you fill the state institutions with your people (i.e. Islamists, your second cousins, etc.) instead of qualified people, of course they won't work efficiently. This is a failure of management, and can be solved by managing the place better. Of course, AKP doesn't want to improve the situation, but wants to sell what belongs to the Turkish people to rich investors. Erdo�an even said 'these institutions are not in a good shape' etc. He made the price go down. He is obviously desperate to sell them as fast as possible like the ex-communists did. Those ex-communists which sold everything quickly are still in economic crisis after 15 years, but it is good for Erdo�an. Adam zaten diyor 'Ben �lkeyi adeta pazarlamakla m�kellefim.'

Wealth distribution in Turkey used to be like Europe. The gap between the rich and the poor was not that much. Today we are like the USA. Tomorrow we will be like Brazil. The few rich people will live in protected luxury villages and the poor will be shot in the streets by the police.

I think before wealth distribution problem, we should have some wealth, unfortunately again, we have  not much resource for social politics.

If you look at the economic policy of AKP, you'll see that they are always on the side of the capital, and never on the side of labour and the poor. Since AKP got in the power, the rich got richer Turkey and the poor got poorer. AKP's best friends are the IMF and TUSIAD-MUSIAD.  

Do he have much  alternatives?   we cannot stand alone  without IMF.

Well, Turkey is in Afghanistan and they tried hard to join the USA in Iraq. I hardly call it friendly.

I hardy call afhanistan politics as agressive one, for iraq It is true,  but again it is not an expansionist move, but they tried to persuade USA against PKK.

My parents are both officials (memur) and yesterday I was at a state university talking to the professors, so I know that I am talking about. If you fill the state institutions with your people (i.e. Islamists, your second cousins, etc.) instead of qualified people, of course they won't work efficiently. This is a failure of management, and can be solved by managing the place better. Of course, AKP doesn't want to improve the situation, but wants to sell what belongs to the Turkish people to rich investors. Erdo�an even said 'these institutions are not in a good shape' etc. He made the price go down. He is obviously desperate to sell them as fast as possible like the ex-communists did. Those ex-communists which sold everything quickly are still in economic crisis after 15 years, but it is good for Erdo�an.

Infact It was not erdogan who filled this institution with his people, every goverment  did this.Yeah If they are managed well, they would be efficent.

But problem is that, this institution cannot be managed well until  this time, and they wont  be managed too.So It is best alternative.

Adam zaten diyor 'Ben �lkeyi adeta pazarlamakla m�kellefim.'

Well said, unfortunately our  local capital is not enough, we need foreign capital.

we should be realist not idealist.

 voted for one of the left wing parties. They are the real alternative.  Or we can always make a revolution.

well no comment, I have not much good feeling against left or revolution.

i dont understand some turks, its as if when they see a there leader practising his beleif its a complete insult to them. is it becouse it feels embarrising to see ur leader practise islam? are you's worried about what non-muslim countries would think of turkey? coz many americans are proud to see president bush going to church or giving religious talk just lik i feel proud to see Erdogan embracing his (our) religion islam. its not that bad people, really. get over this islamophebia that some have. its starting to get really rediculous coz like it or not, MUSLIM OR NOT if ur a turk islam will always be ur history and history is ur identity.

Lol!! Interesting poll.

Well, I decided to go against the flow, and voted Musharaff, mainly because he's probably the best president Pakistan has had for a long time, perhaps the best in my opinion. It's based on the handling of the economy and the long term outlook, the self reliance aspect he's put through. He's a dictator, but luckily a good one. Anyhow the Pakistani media do bash him quite frequently when he doesnt deserve it, so he's not a domineering dictator. Still under him, Pakistan has made great leaps in the economy (primarily Shaukat Aziz), as well as the development of the cruise missile which was a good achievement.

Erdogan has also done well, though I dont agree with the Hijab ban in Turkey, it's up to those to choose who wants to wear it, Erdogan is also of this opinion I think? I think Erdogan inherited a good economy though, and I'm not sure what he's done to improve it, as I havent reasearched it  

Mahathir Mohamed also was a good prime minister. I think Musharaff can emulate it, though I think he'll step aside for 2007 or so, or perhaps get re-elected. Everyone probably disagrees with this  

Well maybe the only wrong thing that Atat�rk had ever made was not to seperate the people and totalised them in a single Turkish identity (for me)

Well Infact at Atat�rk time it is half-true, It created some benefit, problem is Ataturk policy about this  topic never changed. If It changed 20-30 years ago,  not our life would be better.

But well, maybe he should say, we are ottomans, instead of we are turks.

Are you joking? That would lead to a civil war!

And the seperatist-terrorist problem would be ten times worse than it is now.

It would be impossible for us to protect our unity of soil without using arms.

do  you see a civil war at iran? or at USA? different ethnics does not mean civil war, but supression of different ethnics means civil war.(like now)