With each passing day it becomes quite obvious that establishing a full-fledged democracy in Turkey requires a radical transformation of civilian-military relations.
The military has been a "political power" with a vested interest in the undemocratic character of Turkish politics that enables them to extract and exercise enormous power.
This is not a baseless and abstract assertion, but a fact. It is the military that has interrupted Turkish democracy four times in the last 50 years. The first such coup in 1960 set a poisonous precedent for the intervention of the military in politics, executed in order to establish and sustain its power and privileges. The justification for unlawful intervention has changed over the years: protect the Constitution, establish public order, fight against communism, stop secessionist Kurdish movements, protect secularism, etc. What has not changed is the objective: keep power and resources in the grip of the military leadership.
This was evident once more in the release last week of a leaked conversation of İsmail Hakkı Karadayı, the former chief of general staff. Everyone interested in civilian-military relations in Turkey should get a copy of this tape, which is an honest confession by a retired chief of the Turkish military about conspiracies against democracy carried out from the 1960s to the end of the 1990s.
The content and style of his remarks remind us that a politicized Turkish military constitutes one of the greatest obstacles to achieving a genuine democracy in Turkey. From the tape we can see that the tradition of toppling democratically elected governments by the use of force is part of the institutional culture in the military, which sees itself as above the law, democratic principles and the will and wishes of the nation; they regard themselves as untouchables.
Gen. Karadayı admits his role in military coups from the 1960s onwards. On the more recent coup of 1997, carried out when he was the chief of general staff, Karadayı explains how they threatened an elected government in order to force them to resign, then how they offered the government to a political party, and how the president at the time, Süleyman Demirel, worked with them. He referred to Demirel as the one who "did whatever we asked him to do." I cannot repeat here how Gen. Karadayı referred to former Prime Ministers Tansu Çiller and Mesut Yılmaz!
This and other revelations about the military's role in the "power game" in Ankara explain a lot about Turkish domestic politics and foreign affairs. They have naturally resisted -- and will continue to resist -- reforms that take away those powers deemed unacceptable in a normal democracy. Since the EU noted in 1997 (Agenda 2000) that the nature of civilian-military relations in Turkey was an obstacle to Turkey's accession, the military has guarded the nation against the EU and related reforms.
The military has resisted Turkey's march into an EU membership and an engagement with globalizing dynamics because they want Turkey to be ruled in Ankara, where they have the ultimate say, if not a veto power over economic and political decisions. The military is much aware that its rule over Ankara will not continue if Turkey becomes a member of the EU, so we hear them referring to the need to keep "Turkish independence and the nation-state" intact, a move to justify their resistance. So the position is clear: Keep Turkey ruled in Ankara and don't bring Brussels into the power game played over in Turkey. Isolation of Turkey from the outside world, including the EU, is key for the military to continue to exercise its political power in Turkey. Therefore market economy, democratization, globalization, and the EU accession process are viewed as the greatest threats to the military's established interest to rule Turkey.
When the military starts minding its own business instead of intervening in politics, we will get closer to achieving a contemporary democratic civilization. The question is: Who will persuade or force the military to withdraw to its barracks?
02 March 2009
The military has been a "political power" with a vested interest in the undemocratic character of Turkish politics that enables them to extract and exercise enormous power.
This is not a baseless and abstract assertion, but a fact. It is the military that has interrupted Turkish democracy four times in the last 50 years. The first such coup in 1960 set a poisonous precedent for the intervention of the military in politics, executed in order to establish and sustain its power and privileges. The justification for unlawful intervention has changed over the years: protect the Constitution, establish public order, fight against communism, stop secessionist Kurdish movements, protect secularism, etc. What has not changed is the objective: keep power and resources in the grip of the military leadership.
This was evident once more in the release last week of a leaked conversation of İsmail Hakkı Karadayı, the former chief of general staff. Everyone interested in civilian-military relations in Turkey should get a copy of this tape, which is an honest confession by a retired chief of the Turkish military about conspiracies against democracy carried out from the 1960s to the end of the 1990s.
The content and style of his remarks remind us that a politicized Turkish military constitutes one of the greatest obstacles to achieving a genuine democracy in Turkey. From the tape we can see that the tradition of toppling democratically elected governments by the use of force is part of the institutional culture in the military, which sees itself as above the law, democratic principles and the will and wishes of the nation; they regard themselves as untouchables.
Gen. Karadayı admits his role in military coups from the 1960s onwards. On the more recent coup of 1997, carried out when he was the chief of general staff, Karadayı explains how they threatened an elected government in order to force them to resign, then how they offered the government to a political party, and how the president at the time, Süleyman Demirel, worked with them. He referred to Demirel as the one who "did whatever we asked him to do." I cannot repeat here how Gen. Karadayı referred to former Prime Ministers Tansu Çiller and Mesut Yılmaz!
This and other revelations about the military's role in the "power game" in Ankara explain a lot about Turkish domestic politics and foreign affairs. They have naturally resisted -- and will continue to resist -- reforms that take away those powers deemed unacceptable in a normal democracy. Since the EU noted in 1997 (Agenda 2000) that the nature of civilian-military relations in Turkey was an obstacle to Turkey's accession, the military has guarded the nation against the EU and related reforms.
The military has resisted Turkey's march into an EU membership and an engagement with globalizing dynamics because they want Turkey to be ruled in Ankara, where they have the ultimate say, if not a veto power over economic and political decisions. The military is much aware that its rule over Ankara will not continue if Turkey becomes a member of the EU, so we hear them referring to the need to keep "Turkish independence and the nation-state" intact, a move to justify their resistance. So the position is clear: Keep Turkey ruled in Ankara and don't bring Brussels into the power game played over in Turkey. Isolation of Turkey from the outside world, including the EU, is key for the military to continue to exercise its political power in Turkey. Therefore market economy, democratization, globalization, and the EU accession process are viewed as the greatest threats to the military's established interest to rule Turkey.
When the military starts minding its own business instead of intervening in politics, we will get closer to achieving a contemporary democratic civilization. The question is: Who will persuade or force the military to withdraw to its barracks?
02 March 2009
No comments:
Post a Comment