Last week, the military voiced its support for the solution process through the National Security Council (MGK), prompting strong criticism from the opposition Republican People's Party (CHP) and Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), which accused the military of being a part of a plan to divide Turkey. In his message, which was released to mark the upcoming Victory Day, Başbuğ said: “The Turkish Armed Forces [TSK] will never accept a change to the nation-state or unitary state structure [of Turkey] for any reason. As is expressed in the third article of the Constitution of the Turkish Republic, which cannot be changed, Turkey is a single, undivided state with its country and nation. Its language is Turkish. The Turkish Armed Forces supports the nation-state and the unitary state of Turkey.” The government interpreted Başbuğ's statement as the military's reiteration of its support for the Kurdish initiative, while opposition parties deduced the opposite meaning; however, many analysts opted not to comment on the content of this speech because they were uneasy about a military officer becoming involved in political affairs.“The MHP and the CHP did their best to bring the military into politics. They provoked the military and urged it to speak. They were successful. It was impossible for the military to remain silent in the wake of such serious accusations,” says Zaman's Mustafa Ünal regarding Başbuğ's Tuesday statement. In his view, opposition parties that are against the democratic initiative package wanted to bring the military to their side by directing weighty accusations at the military. “CHP leader Deniz Baykal and MHP leader Devlet Bahçeli achieved their goals. Başbuğ could not remain indifferent to the serious charges directed by the politicians,” says Ünal. Ünal believes the language Başbuğ used was ambiguous, leading to the government and opposition parties to derive opposite interpretations of the same speech. No matter what someone thinks about Başbuğ's speech, Ünal says, it is incorrect to carry his remarks to the domain of politics because military involvement in politics will lead to a problematic situation regarding democracy. “Even though the military is affected by the Kurdish issue, this issue is a political issue. It is beneficial to comment on Başbuğ's speech with this in mind. The MHP and CHP may not conduct politics without the influence of the military, but this is not possible in democracies,” contends Ünal.
Star's Eser Karakaş does not comment on whether Başbuğ reaffirmed the military's support for the Kurdish initiative or if he opposed the solution process because he very disturbed by Başbuğ speaking on such a political issue. “The involvement of the military in such political processes and it taking a side concerning political issues is harmful to the institution, which is responsible for ensuring the external security of 70 million people. Esteemed Başbuğ does not have the right to drag Turkey and the institution he heads outside the scope of modernity to this extent. I wish I could have written something different about the Turkish military today,” he complains.
According to Sabah's Nazlı Ilıcak, politicians should have expected the military to remain silent about a political issue like this, but the discourse adopted by opposition parties in particular following last week's MGK meeting showed that they did not internalize democracy. “I think they expected the military to rebuke the government just as it did in the Feb. 28, 1997 postmodern military intervention. But the responsibility for this initiative is on the shoulders of the government. Even if commanders voiced their support for the process at the MGK meeting, the final word belongs to the civilians, and democracy requires this,” suggests Ilıcak.
