Başbuğ’s speech in numbers

In the Feb. 28 process (the coup of 1997), military officers organized briefings for the judiciary and media organizations, and the speakers at these briefing meetings made bold statements about saving the country, particularly when they received wild applause from the audience. This was the wrong thing to do because although a limited number of elites were satisfied, ordinary citizens watched the developments with tears rolling down their cheeks. To a certain extent, it now seems they are avoiding making the same mistake. "Religion" is the most repeated word after "terror" in the speech. Pasha uttered the word "religion" 61 times. This emphasis comes from the need to show that the military has no problem with religion. But why do they feel this need? We can assume that some past military malpractices or speeches have created an image of the military that is not favored by the army. It is not without merit that Pasha stressed the fact that Turks tended to regard the army as the House of the Prophet in order to rectify this image. Is this sufficient? No. The Turkish Armed Forces (TSK) must come to terms with devout people.

The uninvited memorandum that was posted on the official Web site of the General Staff at midnight on April 27, 2007 not only upset the political balance but also hurt devout people. The academic who wrote the text of that memorandum created a serious breakdown in communication for the military. The memorandum even targeted the festivities held to celebrate the birth of the Prophet Muhammad -- a big disappointment for religious people. In addition to hurting believers, the military came to be perceived as sponsoring social engineering through intervening in the democratic system and the judiciary. Now the General Staff is using more careful language. For instance, Gen. Başbuğ referred to democracy 44 times. Until very recently, the top brass would insistently stress secularism and only make unwilling references to democracy. By saying secularism in only 23 occurrences, Başbuğ tried to set a balance with democracy. Is this sufficient? No. In order to prove that it is being more democratic, the TSK must distance itself from groups who resort to undemocratic methods.

Some time ago, Başbuğ had a communication failure in Balıkesir. He held a press conference and delivered a threatening speech broadcast live, even shouting and waving his finger. Pasha's last speech was much more polite. His progress from the disastrous speech in Balıkesir to the recent one is as important as the military progress from the Feb. 28 process to today. It is for this reason that the speech at the War Academies Command was received more positively by the general public. The chief of general staff represents the Turkish army, an institution that dates back 2,000 years. Given the roots of this institution, it is obvious that what we are not dealing with a private company or a family business. Accordingly, everyone expects the army to be more modern, more democratic and more successful in its performance. In this respect, Başbuğ's speech was perceived as warmer and more embracing. Is this sufficient? No. The TSK must choose a more sympathetic and modern method of communication.

Having used the word "terrorism," the chief of general staff referred to "organization," "separatist" and "Kurd" or "Kurdish" 76, 28 and eight times, respectively. These figures imply that Başbuğ has an interesting approach to the Kurdish issue. By noting that the military and civilian authorities have made mistakes up till now, he paves the way for self-criticism. In a more radical move, he even said, "In the final analysis, a terrorist is a human being." This is an interesting position. "There are no Kurds. They are just mountain Turks. They were named Kurds because of the sounds they make walking on snow," it was frequently argued to deny the Kurdish identity. And it is considerably important progress from this stance to the current position, which even suggests that appropriate legal arrangements should be made to lure militants into laying down arms. Is this sufficient? No. The TSK must prove in practice that the Kurdish issue is not an issue that can be solved through military methods.

The chief of general staff dissected civilian-military relations in his identity as a solider. Başbuğ referred to the word "civilian" 28 times and to the word "nation" 24 times. The word "identity" and its derivatives were repeated 40 times. This is not a bad approach, but when it came to "certain [religious] communities," the entire magic of his approach was lost and his academic perspective was distorted. It is wrong to label the ideas of famous sociologists as "worn out" after referring to "communities" 12 times from an academic perspective. His perception of the natural development of people's "primary and secondary identities," which result from becoming civil or democratic, as enemies or his attempt to advertise these as such, is not in accordance with the cool-headed and sympathetic voice that dominated the two-hour speech.

Referring to "devout groups" or "devout people" five times, Başbuğ made some accusations about "certain [religious] communities." This discriminatory tone based on overgeneralizations undermines the persuasive power of the speech. Moreover, his mishandling of the term "social [welfare] state" implies a mindset that would argue "if [religious] communities or civil society are really needed, it will be us [the state] that will establish them." Moreover, not only do the religious communities of this country not conflict with the law, they also serve as security for social peace. To talk about "pluralism" in four occurrences and criticize the attempts to raise "uniform people" while suggesting the establishment of a "uniform civil society" or of raising "uniform devout people" (making this proposition in the name of the armed forces or leading to such perceptions) is not a modern approach that can be expected from the TSK, an institution which is obliged to embrace everyone in this country and whose expenditures are funded through "taxes paid by this nation" and whose "single duty is to serve this nation."

Gen. Başbuğ referred to US President Barack Obama four times. His quotations of Obama were intended to stress pluralism. In fact the US is one of the best examples of the coexistence of diverse identities and cultures. However, there were some contradictions in the comparisons drawn by Başbuğ. First, the US is not a suitable example for the "nation-state" model repeated by Başbuğ 18 times. Indeed, the federal system in the US has been put in place -- out of necessity -- in order to keep plural identities together. Başbuğ quoted President Obama, who said, "We are a nation who come from different origins, races and religions, but who unite around common ideals." But Obama's emphasis is on common ideals, not on common governance. Another of Başbuğ's misanalyses concerning his quotations of Obama was again about pluralism. The US is the richest country in terms of the presence of nongovernmental organizations and religious communities. In the US, there are religious communities with more than 10 million followers, and these communities can engage in all sorts of activities, ranging from hotel management to education. Members of these communities are among Hollywood stars and athletes. Take, for instance, schools in the US. According to statistics provided by the US Department of Education, about 5 million children attend "schools run by religious communities." There are about 500,000 teachers and 28,000 schoolmasters for the 28,000 schools run by these communities. What I am trying to say is that providing Obama as an example but presenting the fundamental freedoms in the US as illegal activities in Turkey or implying that some social movements that are widely supported by the nation are criminal is a clear violation of the principle of the presumption of innocence, isn't it?