The expression of such a view, something I did two weeks ago, guarantees my being profiled as an “anti-Turkish military” person according to a “memorandum” prepared by the Turkish Armed Forces (TSK). The revelations last week in weekly news magazine Nokta about the profiling practices of the TSK on both media groups and individual journalists proved my point. Some institutions in this country, including the military, are still far from understanding and practicing the requirements of democratic governance. The report was criticized for being too simplistic and lacking any analytical sophistication. This is true; journalists and news organizations are portrayed as either pro or anti-TSK, depending on their position not only with regard to military related issues, but also their broader political stance. A neoconian attitude of “either with us or against us” seems to have dominated the report. This is certainly a problematic mindset. The task of the TSK is to defend the country in its integrity, not to divide up its people according to their political views. Can you imagine such a view dominating Turkey’s civilian sphere, from politics to economy, and culture to social affairs?
Nokta’s revelation, which was not denied by the TSK, is a scandal. But what is more scandalous is how it was responded to.
The TSK has started an investigation. But its purpose is to find out who leaked the report, not to question who has conducted such an unlawful act of profiling. I think this is the real scandal, which was treated by the mainstream media as a normal practice, which makes me think that such media groups deserve to be treated as a subordinate organs of “men with weapons.” Turkish media proved, during the February 28 military coup, how willing they were to be played at the hands of the military. Those who are profiling the media are aware of the unprincipled editorial support they can get from the mainstream media. Does this secure that media is also to be praised by the profilers? No. The profilers want total submission.
Over the “memorandum” some journalists tried hard to demonstrate how loyal they are to the TSK by expressing their disappointment in being portrayed as untrustworthy. They were right in their resentment towards the profilers because they did what they were told to do at critical times; therefore, they were expecting better treatment!
And, lastly the civilian government: It refrained from making even a statement over the issue, let alone any initiation for an investigation into the event. This may be defended as a prudent policy in this critical year of elections. But more than prudence, it is a sign of the government’s weakness which will certainly be exploited.
The TSK “memorandum” was also described by some “journalists,” who are named in the memorandum as “pro-military,” as a “normal practice” conducted by the military towards a “strategic” sector, the media. Which social, political and economic sectors are not strategic and deserving a closer supervision from such a “security-centric” perspective? If someone in the military profiles newspapers and journalists according to their support of the military’s political role, then they are surely tailoring similar reports on other sectors and groups. Do those silent politicians think that they are not being profiled as either pro-military or anti-military? If someone is issuing such reports and getting away with it, we would assume that no single social group can escape from such practices. When shall we hear of the report concerning businessmen? Do they not have a report classifying NGOs and their activists? How about academics located in “strategic institutions” like universities?
Nobody is immune from their profiling, even those journalists who often call for greater military intervention in the political arena. Once such practices are normalized, nobody can escape from them. The machine created with a “legitimate mission’” of policing every individual’s loyalty to whatever the military chooses to do will become effective for everybody.
Once again it has been revealed that unless the military does its own job, neither the constitutional order nor individuals, be it journalists, intellectuals, businessmen or NGO activists, are safe in this country.
