I visited our own national army headquarters as part of a publicly funded civil society program when I was a young 16-year-old boy attending secondary school. It aimed at bringing the younger -- and of course very anti-war generation -- closer to understanding the aims of having -- and having to paying for! -- an army, particularly in times of relative peace. We knew about the Cold War and other conflicts, but the fact that France and Germany had become friends meant that we were more in the process of bridge-building by visiting our neighbors instead of engaging in armed conflict.We were a very politicized young generation interested in about almost everything; we were the “leftovers” of the student protest of the late 1960s that shaped European societies. Neither radicalism nor apathy made us tick -- we just wanted to find our own place in a quite saturated, less aware society; we desired to know about things. Relying on peer groups, face-to-face meetings and the print media was extremely vital to stay on top of developments. Visiting our democratic institutions was another such tool to learn, ask questions, criticize and then learn some more.
“Bringing civil society closer to the military” referred to explaining to us teenagers how a modern army can operate under the directives of its civilian leaders and not the other way around. The buzzword was “citizen in uniform.” We learned about our national army, its manifold tasks, NATO and its objectives and, yes indeed, we heard about career opportunities in the professional part of that organization, should we ever become interested in it. A few years later and closer to my graduation day, I was on a school exchange visit to central Scotland and stayed with a family whose breadwinner was an active “reserve” soldier with our land forces. When going out hiking in the beautiful countryside, he wore army clothes indeed, but he never came across to me as a warmonger or a member of the extreme right. It was simply the way he wanted to be seen, and so be it. I learned more about Scottish history than from any textbook.
Both the speakers I listened to during my school trip to the national army headquarters as well as my stay with the man who wore army clothes on a Sunday morning trip to the local mountains taught me a lot about many things in life, including learning about tolerance. Much more important, however, was the fact that a modern nation-state needs an army which is run by its elected politicians and no one else.
This issue is highly controversial as well as intertwined with the need for a new civilian constitution; now is the right time, as the time when you are sailing with the wind and not against it is when you should take advantage of it. The name of the game is irreversibly establishing democracy in this country. A civilian constitution and fundamentally altered civilian-military relations are the two key ingredients to achieving exactly that. Both the fact that a nation-state does require an army, whether big or small -- think Belgium -- as well as who the commander-in-chief is have to be enshrined in a constitution. Despite the fact that we live in supposedly modern times, our civilizations have been unable to eradicate war and conflict, including terrorism.
This leads to a number of related issues. First: Why is serious battlefield-style combat, including hunting down the outlawed Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), being carried out by young conscripts instead of by perfectly trained and highly skilled senior officers only? Second: All important decisions involving matters other than the day-to-day administrative running of the armed forces must be based on a parliamentary majority. Third: The prime minister and/or the president are the commander-in-chief and no one else. Fourth: The elected government and the president of the republic, as its highest-ranking officer, are the sole representatives of the people. Anyone else, including the military, work for the people under the command of the government carrying out its democratic mandate as given to it by the people. Finally: A debate should start in earnest whether in the long run a professional army would not be a better solution.
Democracy matures over time and, once it has been firmly established, there is no turning back. I wish the Turkish government luck and determination in its long overdue attempts to bring military-civilian relations into line with European standards. The people of this proud nation will always thank them for showing courage.
