At first glance, it is an important gain in the name of the democratic culture in our country that both winners and losers accept the election results. In our country, elections are witnessed by a giant army of observers including political parties, media organizations, the judiciary and international observers, which averts the likelihood of chaos similar to the current situation in Iran. As there is no such a mechanism in Iran, there is not much difference between the claims raised by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Mir Hossein Mousavi. In this respect, we can be proud of our democracy.However, despite the fact that we have a more established democratic experience compared to Iran and that the government assumes office based on the election results, it would be highly controversial to argue that our elites have internalized respect for the nation's electoral preferences.
Seen from a distance, Turkey is viewed as a contemporary and democratic country where the people are free, while Iran is regarded as a theocratic regime where a small minority of elites have the final say in the country's governance. Yet the truth is much more complicated than this. Although their impact may be considered restricted, the people of Iran are not completely left out of the political process. The political rivalry that mobilizes the masses, the colorful political election campaigns and the elections are a proof of this.
These indicators of democracy are much more salient and powerful in Turkey, but there have always been debates about the extent to which the nation's electoral preferences should be accepted. While there is a great deal of tension concerning the election results in Iran, it may sound absurd that Turkey, which is currently conducting negotiations with the European Union for full membership, is busy discussing shadowy plots to overthrow the democratically elected government. Yet, this is the bitter reality we must accept.
The modern and post-modern military coups we have experienced since the introduction of the multiparty regime, the ongoing Ergenekon trial, and the coup plan which is claimed to be prepared by Staff Col. Dursun Çiçek are all related to the same problem: to what extent shall we pay respect to the national will?
It is a happy coincidence that the year's meeting of the Abant Platform, organized by the Journalists and Writers Association, discussed this issue. In terms of summing up our democratic adventure and underling the problems it faces, the speech delivered by Professor Kemal Karpat, who can be best described as a historian of democracy in Turkey, was like a manifesto. If only everyone who ponders upon the civilian-military relations could obtain and listen to this speech by Professor Karpat.
Indeed, Professor Karpat, currently aged 85, has been studying the issue of democracy in Turkey since he was 26, and what he said was concise and to the point.
For him, the Turkish people may not be particularly well informed about democracy, but they definitely know about its spirit and during the last 20 to 25 years, Turkey has been transforming itself from a guided democracy to a true democracy, though this has been a slow process. The fact that the election results which may result in clashes in other countries may be controversial in Turkey is a gain.
The administrations established since the introduction of modernization have not paid sufficient heed to the values, essence or identity of the nation and has kept it under tight guardianship. But, thanks to the improved economic activities in Anatolia, the impact of globalization, and the EU membership process, this is changing.
But some civilian and non-civilian groups are posing obstacles to democracy. Professor Karpat identified the mentality of these groups: they do not believe that human beings are born free and equal.
He also named these groups. At the top of his list was the military. Military officers have to be the elite in their professions and this is both a gain and an obligation. What is problematic is the elitist mentality that assumes superiority over the ordinary people. This mentality is dominant, not only among the military officers, but also among many civilian institutions. This mentality must be revised and it must be understood that this mindset cannot coexist with democracy or progress. As a solution, Professor Karpat advises dialogue with the military in order to teach them democratic culture. It is wrong to continuously criticize them. For him, introducing democracy to the military will not only boost the military's contribution to democracy, but also add strength to the foundations of this country.
After this speech in which the judiciary, in which the opposition and the media received their shares of criticism as well, we walked and chatted with Professor Karpat along the coast of Lake Abant. During this walk, he further elaborated his views about the military. Although he is frequently criticized, he is not a typical anti-military intellectual. He believes that Turkey's powerful army is its most important card in the international arena. His wish is merely to see the military at peace with democracy. Isn't this the common wish of the entire country?
