This is the distance we have traveled on a road paved by the military coup of May 27, 1960. There have been two military coups in Turkey: one took place on May 27, 1960, while the other was the coup of Sept. 12, 1980. In each of these coups, Parliament was dissolved, and the military took over the leadership of the country. Furthermore, in the May 27, 1960 coup, then-Prime Minister Adnan Menderes and the ministers of finance and foreign affairs received the death penalty. Similarly, in the 1980 coup many people were given capital punishment. A “memorandum,” which entered the Turkish political vocabulary on March 12, 1971, was a powerful warning, and following this 1971 memorandum, the direction of Turkish politics took a turn in a different direction. Another important intervention which was not an open military coup took place on Feb. 28, 1997. There were different methods utilized in this event; however, it changed the course of politics in terms of its outcome. Feb. 28 cost Turkey $54 billion as the economy reeled from the political intrigue. The latest notice, posted on the chief of general staff's Web site on April 27, 2007, was also in this regard a memorandum. The elections were set to take place on Nov. 4, as the government had announced; however, they were moved to an earlier date. The president was to be chosen, but this didn't happen, either. Meanwhile, relations between the central right and central left parties warmed up -- some unions, forced marriages and engagements took place between them. The elections were moved to July 22, 2007. Later, then-Chief of General Staff Gen. Yaşar Büyükanıt admitted that he personally penned the memorandum. All of this shows us that politics don't flow in their own natural channel. There is a major struggle taking place between civilians and those looking to intervene in politics. And this struggle is so important that it determines not just Turkey's but also the Middle East's political future.
It might be beneficial to look behind the surface of the matter because there is more to this picture than what meets the eye. In order to understand the dynamics and real factors that create this picture, we need to examine the far and near future. Turkey is a country that is more complicated than imagined.
It is possible to attribute politics in Turkey to a few sources. First, we can attribute it to the tradition of politics that existed in the Ottoman state. However, regardless of whether or not Ottoman politics were good or bad, they came to a breaking point with the Tanzimat Fermanı (Hatt-i Sharif) in 1839. In a way, the Ottomans broke away from traditional Ottoman politics after this date and stepped into modern politics. Of course, this didn't mean a complete parting of ways with Ottoman traditions. The Tanzimat, in addition to not being a complete breakaway, was a period in which Western-influenced politics began to be practiced. This period began in 1839 and ended in 1908 along with II Meşrutiyet (the Second Constitutional Era) and the taking over of İttihat ve Terakki (Committee of Union and Progress) and thus a political style peculiar to Turkey called “Jön Türkler” or “İttihatçılar” (“Young Turks” or “Unioners”).
The Ottoman tradition of statehood and politics comprised four main pillars. In addition to this, the Ottoman period should be divided into two because up until Fatih Sultan Mehmet, the Ottomans were a state of tribe and clan. It is not possible to speak of a full state when examining the periods of Osman and Orhan Bey. During this term, people engaged in conquests with the spirit of jihad. Their political methods were very different. With Fatih, the Ottoman state was redesigned as an empire. Fatih was affected by four main factors when designing the empire: The first was from the Indian-Mogul state tradition. The second was the Yassa, or code of law, belonging to Genghis Khan. Thirdly, the sword rights of the Arabs, and fourthly, the palace and empire tradition as well as the church-state relationship of the Byzantines influenced Fatih's re-envisioned empire. The first thing we think of when we say “Ottoman politics” is that politics is “katl” (killing) because someone who wants to engage in politics is someone who is ready to kill.
Naturally, this does not mean that lawlessness and arbitrariness reigned supreme during the Ottoman era. But it was understood that Ottoman politics was “a method of administration and manners.” And the modern Turkish leading elite continue to see politics in this light. They refuse to see politics as a common ground for discussion to maintain the relationship between the powers that be.
