[FONT=Georgia]Cemil Cicek, the spokesman of the government, announced that the government is in plan to assign 95 thousand civil servants in 2009. Identifying the personnel shortcomings in the cabinet meeting, the government decided to engage 95 people in different positions, according to the spokesman.
25 thousand of the new workforces will be allocated as permanent staff whereas 70 thousand will work on a contract base. Ministry of Education and Ministry of Health will be given 20 thousand contracted personnel each. 20 thousand permanent staff will be divided equally between Ministry of Interior and Ministry of Health. Although the agenda has not been fixed yet, the government plans to make the assignments in the summer and autumn. Critics oppose the timing of the statement and regard as tactic to influence the public opinion just before the local elections.
Looks like you accidentally used the URL for this thread, rather than the original news site. I’m interested to see what the article’s actually about beyond the bureaucratic paper shuffling described. Is this new hires, as a means of job creation?
Comparing the 95K new government jobs to the current unemployment figure of 3.3 million, that’s about one job per 35 unemployed. Not a bad start, but I they’ll obviously have to do better to make a noticeable difference.
This is the mission of the think tank writing the article:
The Middle East Forum, a think tank, seeks to define and promote American interests in the Middle East. It defines U.S. interests to include fighting radical Islam, whether terroristic or lawful; working for Palestinian acceptance of Israel; improving the management of U.S. democracy efforts; reducing energy dependence on the Middle East; more robustly asserting U.S. interests vis–vis Saudi Arabia, and countering the Iranian threat. The Forum also works to improve Middle East stuides in North America.
MEF sees the region, with its profusion of dictatorships, radical ideologies, existential conflicts, border disagreements, political violence, and weapons of mass destruction as a major source of problems for the United States. Accordingly, it urges active measures to protect Americans and their allies.
Toward this end, the Forum seeks to help shape the intellectual climate in which U.S. foreign policy is made by addressing key issues in a timely and accessible way for a sophisticated public.
I would absolutely love to read an article by respected Muslim scholars living in the Middle East on the same subject to get both points of view on this question and see the extent to which the two views on the analysis converge. :o
Truly I do not believe that you will find a fair debate on the subject. The extremists are actively working against peace in this country. When I say extremists I mean those on every side not just Islamics. The Eastern Catholics are IMHO being forced out as well as the Jews and other non-Muslim groups.
If they are denied governmental protection from Europe and other moderate type governments they will no longer exist. This could very well be nearer now that BHO is in office. Our political allies are now seeing how different BHO is from past presidents in the support of NATO etc.
I read this article that I posted and I thought that these excerpts were the most important points. I’ll try to look for a Muslim viewpoint and a Turkish viewpoint even though they might be very hard to find. At least I’ll be able to see things from opposite biases if never actually an unbiased view.
Linked with the political is what one might call a historical explanation–that Turkey, of all the Muslim countries, has had the longest and closest contact with the West, dating back almost to the beginnings of the Ottoman state.
Successive governments of Turkey wisely did not attempt to introduce full democracy all at once, but instead went through successive phases of limited democracy, laying the foundation for further development, and, at the same time, encouraging the rise of civil society. This process may be seen in many different aspects of life in the country, as for example, in the newspaper press, which is certainly fre…
Many observers have attached great importance to economic circumstances, and, in particular, to the fact that Turkey, alone among the Muslim countries, has achieved a significant economic growth and a substantial rise in the standard of living, and this by its own efforts, not by some fortunate accident, such as the presence of oil in the subsoil. Turkish economic growth was not due to resources discovered by others and used by others for purposes invented by others. It was due to the emergence of new attitudes to economic activity, or new policies for economic development, and of new social elements able to put these policies into effect.
This kind of socioeconomic change in late Ottoman times, and more especially, by the time of Ataturk, had already produced a professional, technical, managerial, entreprenuerial middle class, displaying, to an increasing extent, the attitudes and mores of their Western counterparts.
It seems to me that the middle class and the gradual introduction of democracy, much like the introduction of democracy into the United States may have been key. confused::shrug: