Turkey: Military Reiterates That it is Protector of Democracy in Turkey
Reminiscent of several previous debates, the document went on to explain the "special circumstances" in Turkey that necessitate a firm military hand in civilian affairs.
There has been speculation that the recent visit of U.S. President Bill Clinton was what provoked the leaking of this document to the press.
Clinton has been a strong supporter of Turkey's bid for full European Union membership. Europe, however, has for a long time resisted the pressure coming from the United States on the grounds that Turkey has not fulfilled the Copenhagen criteria, a set fundamental standards which include stability in democratic institutions, that candidate countries need to fulfill before being considered eligible for membership talks. In the Turkish case, however, the general tendency in Europe has been to force Turkey fulfill those criteria not before opening membership talks, but in order to be named a candidate, a position that Ankara has been criticizing as "discriminatory."
While human rights violations are one of the most frequently voiced objections to granting Turkey candidacy status for the EU, another strong objection is the lack of civilian control of the military. Some countries, Scandinavian countries and Austria in particular, are especially insistent on this point, considering it virtually a sine qua non for a country to be viewed as a true democracy. There may be a measure of truth in the claims that Clinton's visit was what spurred the military to defend its position within the Turkish system.
On the other hand, the specter of EU membership alone may have been sufficient to prompt the military to speak out on this subject.
Martti Ahtisaari, the president of Finland, which currently holds the EU term presidency, during his trip earlier this week to Ankara dwelt heavily on the Copenhagen criteria. When translating what practical effects these criteria would have on Turkey, two demands – either changing the structure of or abolishing the National Security Council (MGK) and reducing the role of the Turkish Armed Forces (TSK) – deal directly with the military. Calls to resolve problems with the military. Calls to resolve problems with Greece and to find a solution on Cyprus are also topics on which the military has an extremely cautious approach. With such different perspectives on strategic interests and the role of the military in a democratic country, it is difficult to gauge the sincerity of the statement the military made a little over two years ago that EU membership should be one of the major foreign policy goals of the country and that governmental and civilian groups should put all necessary efforts into achieving this goal. One of the few potential developments that could change the military's attitude in this respect would be giving Turkey a decision-making role in Europe's armed forces operations.
It is likely, however, that the military's initiative was in equal measure a response to the Virtue Party's (FP) call for constitutional reform. While there are many items in the FP package that nearly all parties can agree on, there are other items that have been evaluated as an attempt to breach secularism. For example, the FP suggested a change in the Constitution that would guarantee the right to education to everyone. While the headscarf was not, of course, mentioned in connection with this, it is widely suspected that allowing females to attend state schools and universities wearing headscarves was the aim of this proposal. In the military's view, allowing headscarves in public institutions would be just the first, seemingly innocent, step in an overall plan to implement Shariah [administration of the country in line with the Islamic law]. In so many words, the first hole in the dam must be plugged up, or the entire dam – secularism- might collapse.
Another change proposed by the FP was reducing the military presence on the MGK from its current four members to one – the chief of General Staff only – and reducing the total number of council members from 11 to seven. This would insure that the military remained in an "advisory" capacity to the civilian government and reduce the risk of it acting as a policy-making institution. Change the wording of the related article in the Constitution would further reinforce this principle, rewiring that the Council of Ministers only "take the necessary measures" in response to decisions made at the MGK meetings rather than granting them "priority" on the Council of Ministers" agenda.
In "Current Topics" it is stated: "While it is true that General Staff is tied to the Ministry of Defense in many countries, it is not true, as has been insinuated by certain circles, especially certain members of the media, that the military exerts its authority over the civilian government or has an undue influence in civilian political affairs. These assertions give foreigners the wrong message about Turkish democracy. It must not be forgotten that every country has a system peculiar to itself.
The document goes on the emphasize that religious authorities and institutions were distanced from the administrative civilian authority when the Republic of Turkey was established, "putting an end to hundreds of years of Ottoman Empire tradition" in which religion had been used as a tool by the administration. This secularization of the regime, in the military's view, is one of the most important fruits of the struggle that established the Republic of Turkey and of the legacy left by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. Just a in those days, the military maintains, the "desire and attempts" to institute a Sharriah regime remain one of the gravest dangers to the modern republic.
"The efforts to change the administrative structure of Turkey… result either from an ignorance of Turkey … result either from an ignorance of history or, worse, a desire to unjustly attack the Turkish armed Forces," the military's booklet states.
It would appear that these comments were aimed at undermining the arguments for the constitutional changes proposed by the FP. The military undoubtedly suspect that the party's motives lie behind some of the suggested changes and, likewise, fears that some of the secular parties might be "deceived" or misled by the apparent pro-democracy tone of the constitutional reform package. As has been made clear by comments from some retired military personnel, such as retired Gen. Çevik Bir and neutered Neval Commander Adm. Salim Dervişoğlu, the military does not have an inordinate amount of faith in the civilian rulers of the country. "They haven't done their homework," Dervişoğlu says of the civilian authorities, while Bir contends that the civilians "need a mechanism to make them think." The Turkish military is, an a word, even more proud of itself that its admittedly admiring nation is of it and continually emphasizes that it is the best-educated and most disciplined institution in the country.
In short, the military fears that, left to itself, the civilian authorities might either fall into a trap prepared for them by Islamists and open the constitutional and legal doors to the implementation of Shariah, or, on the contrary, that they are shortsighted enough to continue to use religion as a tool to secure personal power. It does not agree with the view that if all groups and ideologies are left free, the more extreme ones will become marganilized to the extent that they need not be taken seriously any longer.
On the other hand, a hidden struggle with the United States is also likely to at least partially underlie the military's message. After the 1980 intervention the military apparently agreed with the U.S. policy of establishing a "light green" belt of moderate Islam to contain communism and the Soviet Union. It was under the military regime that religions classes in Sunni Islam were made mandatory in public schools. While it is widely suspected that the United States actively supports Fethullah Gülen and his religious movement as a vehicle for "moderate Islam" (Gülen fled the country last spring when video tapes which suggested that this ultimate aim was the establishment of a Shariah regime in turkey were aired on national television, and he remains in the United States today), the military has made an effort to expel Gülen supporters from its ranks, especially in the past few years. Many believe that his difference of opinion on "moderate Islam" is a major but unspoken source of friction between the Unites States and the Turkish military, whose relationship is otherwise quite sound.
Despite the military's protests to the contrary, however, this latest document only serves to confirm the view of many that the military need no longer engage in open interventions, such as the one recently experienced in Pakistan, for the sole reason that it has already sufficiently consolidated its authority over civilian affairs and has no intention of changing this situation in the foreseeable future. 11.25.1999
- Created on .