There is a type of authoritarian leaders that thinks that each soar word publicly spoken in his address is a deathly threat to the whole administrative system. Erdogan, Aliyev, Kocharyan, Lukashenko are the examples. Such type of leaders, presumably, apart from everything, follow some freudian complexes, some kind of childhood memories, when they did not succeed to manifest themselves as a “strong man” and now there is a problem of compensating the lost opportunity. Usually, they are more antagonistically inclined to the freedom of speech and do everything for no negative word to be voiced against them from any tribune.
In the international aspect, assuredly, it is the same. The Council of Europe wants to conduct monitoring in Turkey to see what goes on in that country relative to the human rights, why thousands of people are imprisoned in Turkey, including journalists, parliamentarians, how do you want to restore death penalty? Turkey’s authorities were not in favor of this intention of the Council of Europe apparently and the answer approximately stands for – who are you to conduct a monitoring in here? Do not teach us! We are the most democratic country in the world. As a manifestation of that “courageous” attitude, Turkey threatened foremostly, that will leave the Council of Europe and afterwards factually baned the CօE’s reporter’s access to his country. Suchlike attitude, by the way, was manifested by Venezuela – you want to discuss the developments of our country in the organization of American states (it is already a month that masses of opposition carry out protests – with clashes, death toll, injured)? Then we will leave those organizations.
These two cases prove once again that anti-European or anti-Western campaign is eventually implemented by the authorities that in appearance emphasize, for example, the peculiarities of “Turk’s genes”, but actually those conversations are a smokescreen to their – the authorities’ caprices. If human rights and the differentiation of the wings of the authorities are created by masons then there is no need in following those “nation-denying” values. Sometimes, for domestic consumption, it succeeds, especially in Turkey’s case, within central, rural areas. From the perspective of the external world, it is not an “edible good”, inasmuch as the political, military and economic primary ties of Turkey are with the West.
Consequently, that “roostering” (“we will leave”, “we will not let the observers in”, etc.) has a certain limit. However hated the European values are to Erdogan, he, anyway, will proceed with pretending as if they are not alien to him.