A total revision of the military's role in the affairs of the state; a change in the military command's habit of intervening in major matters of civilian politics and its self-imposed habit of monitoring society. As one amazing revelation after another are reported in the press lately, not only does the magnitude of non-civilian involvement in what appears to be a parliamentary democracy become powerfully exposed, but also the task of dealing with it comes to the fore as the defining test for such a democracy's durability.
Ahmet Türk, leader of the pro-Kurdish Democratic Society Party (DTP), chose to address the DTP deputies in Parliament (not in the general assembly, but in the DTP group meeting) in Kurdish. He justified his choice by referring to Justice and Development Party (AK Party) leader Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, who had also used Kurdish -- albeit briefly -- in a political meeting. He also pointed to a legal contradiction in Turkish law, which allows Kurdish broadcasting from the Turkish Radio and Television Corporation (TRT), but at the same time has led to criminal charges against a number of DTP politicians for speaking in their native tongue while addressing their predominantly Kurdish constituencies.
A politician using not the language of violence, but the legitimate method of conducting civilian politics, exposes the absurdity of the situation: While the Constitution (Article 90) and the Lausanne Treaty -- which created the modern Turkish Republic in 1923 -- together make it clear that the citizens of this republic can use their own languages without restrictions, the Political Parties Law (articles 43 and 81) and the Election Law (Article 58) ambiguously state that "no other language than Turkish can be used in political work." It is, of course, the elected government's duty to take into consideration this odd contradiction -- or lack of clarity in the laws -- and deal with it in the general assembly.
Now, let us turn our attention to a statement by the spokesperson of the military command some days ago on the "Türk incident." "Everybody must act in accordance with the Constitution and the laws. Under the rule of law, it is natural for the judiciary to take measures against those who defy the law," Gen. Metin Gürak said, adding the military's view on TRT's Kurdish broadcasting on TRT 6: "Under the condition that it will not harm the unitary nature of the state and the nation-state, our state may take such initiatives."
The question, then, is as follows: What does a bureaucratic institution have to do with an issue that is to be regarded in the political domain?
Try to find a response.
Furthermore: A secret recording that some newspapers say features the voice of a retired top commander, Gen. İsmail Hakkı Karadayı, landed like a bombshell late last week. In these tapes -- not denied yet by Karadayı -- the retired four-star general reveals one hair-raising episode after another: He says openly that he participated in all coups, that he was part of a year-long preparation for the 1980 coup, that he "ordered" former Prime Minister Necmettin Erbakan to "go," that he "served the power on a platter" to Prime Minister Mesut Yılmaz and that 10 years ago he cooperated with the President Süleyman Demirel. He also talks about how well the "cooperation" with then-Foreign Ministry Undersecretary Onur Öymen (now CHP leader Deniz Baykal's right hand man) worked during the times of enforced political engineering.
This is -- to say the least -- explosive stuff. Articles 309 and 311 of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK) criminalize all activities aimed at overturning the constitutional order, mandating lifetime imprisonment as punishment. The question, then, is: Should a prosecutor not launch an investigation immediately? Will any of them do so?
Try to find a response.
Another bombshell: It was revealed that a prominent figure in the so-called Feb. 28, 1997 "postmodern coup," Çevik Bir, had issued top-secret notes (some of them handwritten) to local commands, instructing them on compiling lists of "enemies of the republic" and "guiding the media." The directives are all of a political nature.
Are there any prosecutors initiating investigations?
Try to find a response.
And the latest bombshell: Yesterday the Taraf daily reported that the local military command in Eskişehir went through the entire city in 2007, categorizing people, shops, local associations and institutions as "fundamentalists," "Christian missionaries," "leftists," "separatists," etc. The exposed document has the signature of a high-level local general in the town.
Rule of law? Illegal activity? Prosecution?
Try to find a response.
Keep in mind that all of these news stories are ignored completely and deliberately by a large segment of the Doğan media outlets, which scream "freedom of the press is in danger!" as long as their owner is embroiled in a controversy with the government, but are unwilling or afraid to say this when such key issues for the future of Turkey's democracy are exposed on a daily basis.
Only a truly civilian, democratic government and a dedicated press can, together, lead this delicate process of bringing the military "back to its basic duty" and to normalization -- exactly as the democrats of the right and left did in Spain, with the help of free, bold and visionary journalism.
