First and foremost, Başbuğ should be congratulated for his courage; standing before the public at a time when the military is being questioned on a range of topics, from death wells to coup diaries, is an important step. While the earlier generation of pro-coup generals described the US as a hyena in their coup diaries, it was interesting to see Başbuğ make mostly positive references to Obama’s speech. After his passionate speech in Balıkesir in October, he delivered an academic speech at the War Academies Command in İstanbul on Tuesday in a coolheaded manner. While some general’s have undermined their commanders by referring to them as “hoja,” Başbuğ’s emphasis on the military being confined to the democratic regime was important.
It was nice to see him talk about the government’s shortcomings on tackling terrorism, respect toward secondary identities and having a pluralistic democracy, and his speaking of the “Turkish public” in reference to Atatürk was revolutionary. He mentioned the names of great philosophers such as Montesquieu, Max Weber, Samuel Huntington and Metin Heper, adding color and elevating the quality of his speech. Başbuğ, who also sought to win the support of democratic intellectuals, has raised the bar for the military’s performance to the right level.
But the reaction to his speech will not be limited to applause from this group. There are at least two other results his speech will yield. First, Başbuğ has exposed himself to the criticism of people who interpret differently the works of philosophers and social scientists mentioned or not mentioned in his speech. Referring to Weber, Başbuğ said the manifestation of religion in social, political and economic fields was wrong. But Weber is the figure that associates the rise of capitalism with Protestant morals. Başbuğ also spoke about religious groups, but if he read Professor Mümtaz’er Türköne’s article on the difference between religious congregations, he would realize that the topic could be viewed from many different perspectives.
It is the same case with the desire of students who would like to enter universities with their headscarf. While a small number of social scientists view this as a threat to secularism, many respectable social scientists, including Professor Nilüfer Göle and Elisabeth Özdalga, view this as a sign of modernization.
By mentioning a study on Turkish citizenship conducted by KONDA Research and Consultancy, Başbuğ stimulated people to recall a study on religious perspectives in Turkey conducted by the Turkish Economic and Social Studies Foundation (TESEV), which provided data proving the irrelevancy of Islamophobia in Turkey. In fact, professor Heper, whom Başbuğ mentioned with respect in his speech, has commended this study.
The second result his speech is likely to yield is that every step Başbuğ takes from now on will serve as a test for his stability. No one will oppose a military that is respectful toward democracy, the rule of law, religious values and ethnic differences, which he so strongly claims are the main principles of the military. Everyone, excluding a couple of conscientious objectors and a few anarchists, will respect this kind of a military. Having principles isn’t the problem, violating them is. May 27, March 12, Sept. 12, Feb. 28 and April 27 -- was democracy respected on these dates? Did the controversial 367 quorum have anything to do with respecting the law? Or what about the coup diaries, the unresolved murder cases or JİTEM’s activities? The list can go on and on.
I don’t have to look too far for such examples. Let me share an experience I recently had as a manager at the Cihan news agency. Last month everyone was concerned with the tragic death of Muhsin Yazıcıoğlu, who was killed in a helicopter crash in the mountains of the southern province of Kahramanmaraş. Cihan reporters and cameramen were near the crash scene covering the story under harsh weather conditions. When reports came that the body of our fellow reporter İsmail Güneş was found, Cihan cameraman and reporter Lütfi Akyurt immediately set out on a four-and-a-half-hour hike up the mountain to the place where Güneş’s body was found. By the time he finished his job at 3:30 p.m., not many people were left on the mountain.
Standing at an altitude of 2,500 meters in freezing weather, a gendarmerie search and rescue team told Akyurt it was getting too cold and that they did not want to leave him there, so they offered to bring him down with their helicopter. As Akyurt prepared to get on the helicopter, a general asked him which news agency he worked for, and when Akyurt said Cihan they said they could not carry a civilian and did not allow him to board the helicopter. Akyurt kindly pointed out that the other reporter on the helicopter, a DHA reporter, was also a civilian. But the gendarmerie refused to allow him to board the helicopter and left him on top of the mountain.
This was their response to a reporter who had covered their search and rescue efforts all day long.
To a certain extent we understand the restrictions against media members on entering official offices and the accreditation practices, but when we heard about this incident we didn’t want to create a stir and thought: “Our military personnel wouldn’t do this. It must be a personal issue.”
Akyurt is a valuable member of our team and we are very proud of him. But most importantly, he is a citizen and a person. So now that our chief of general staff has mentioned universal standards of democracy I sincerely want to ask: If I was stranded on a mountain, would you rescue me?
