This "fortunate" coincidence provided the opportunity for the military to block politics both physically and ideologically. Because the majority of the society was made politically ineffective under the pretext of modernity, the regime was presented as democracy while military guardianship became stronger and more influential. This was so influential and visible that many believed the system would be sustained forever.
However, the political atmosphere in the aftermath of World War II pointed to different election processes in which manipulation was not so easy. The arriving pluralist and liberal environment led social demands that had previously been repressed to appear in the public sphere through political parties. In this way, the regime and the society met for the first time. The overconfidence of the ruling Democrat Party (DP) and its involvement in activities that undermined the legitimacy of its rule provided the opportunity for a military coup. The 1960 coup demonstrated what the republic looked like to the people.
Since then we have had to deal with coup attempts whenever the regime moves away from military guardianship. The idea that coups are staged to correct straying civilian administrations is a strategic lie because coups have emerged when an undesirable probability of democratization became imminent and served to consolidate the guardianship regime. The willingness of the military to leave the office to the civilians after the coups shows that the actual goal is not to rule but to ensure that the country is ruled in accordance with their standards and rules. In other words, as long as military guardianship is welcomed by the civilian administration and the society as a normal state of affairs, the military is not a coup lover. However, when this is not the case, at least some parts of the military develop a reflex and tendency to stage coups.
While there have been a number of unsuccessful coup attempts in the last five decades, the system has always been restored to the guardianship design because every time the regime managed to produce a political line ready to accept this regime while the society remained unable to generate an alternative political movement. But the case is different now because, regardless of how democratic or reformist the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) is, the identity and ability of representation of this party makes its consideration within the military guardianship regime's parameters impossible. For this reason, there have been at least six coup attempts since the AK Party took power.
Therefore, whether or not coups attempting to take out the AK Party are successful and what happens to the coup plotters are critically important questions in terms of the shape of this country's future regime.
And the critical importance of the Ergenekon investigation lies here. Today politics is shaped with reference to this case. Pro-military guardianship actors and the categorical opponents of AK Party rule are trying to belittle and undermine the Ergenekon investigation in an attempt to stress the lines and boundaries of the administration, eager to respond to popular demands.
We also witness the same in the patience and decisiveness of the Ergenekon prosecutors. On the other hand, it is obvious that it is impossible to openly stand against the military. The probable goal of the visit paid by the chief of general staff to the prime minister and the president after the latest arrests was to forward a demand for collective protection of the military's image. There is one simple explanation and meaning in the immediate compliance of the military with the court's action with respect to the latest arrests: that the damage would be far more if the military had decided to protect the defendants. There would probably have been many problems for the military's internal balance if this had happened.
In short, there is no broad consensus between the civilian administration and the military. In response to the moves by the administration and the unstoppable pursuit of justice voiced by a group within the judiciary, the military has to retreat. In return for this retreat, the prime minister is expected to make a gesture and at least praise the military on behalf of the state. But it seems that for the first time in republican history, a civilian government has started to destroy the boundaries of military guardianship and turn the struggle into a legal process.
Of course, the local elections will serve as the critical point because they will not be about local administrations. Popular support of 45 percent for the AK Party will confirm the AK Party's position and point to a new era where military guardianship will be effectively eliminated. But if this support declines to 35 percent, this will be considered as a sign of Turkey's inability to get rid of its old regime.
