Visiting a military outpost on the border on the occasion of Eid al-Fitr, Başbuğ said the dominant system of tribal feudalism in Turkey's Kurdish-dominated Southeast is one of the causes of suffering for the terror-stricken region's people. He said the people of the Southeast had suffered greatly from “aghas,” or feudal lords, in their history, adding that they are now suffering under a different kind of agha. “The real problem is saving our people from the domination of the aghas of politics and terror,” he added. When asked by the public whether Turkey is on the path of division due to the democratization initiative, he told them not to pay much heed to debate programs on television and ruled out any such prospect. The opposition parties, which claim the democratization initiative is aimed at dividing Turkey, reacted adversely to Başbuğ's statements, saying they downplayed the public's concerns and interfered in political affairs, expanding the scope of the debate. Although Zaman's Mustafa Ünal finds Başbuğ's Mardin visit meaningful, he criticizes him for speaking like a politician because he thinks an army chief's making such political statements in a country runs contrary to the sprit of democracy. He says commanders making statements on issues which are not within their spheres of interest pulls them into day-to-day political debates and that this paves the way for the wearing down of the military. Considering the reaction of the opposition parties, the Republican People's Party (CHP) and the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), to Başbuğ's statements regarding the democratization initiative, he says their reactions stem from the fact that Başbuğ does not support their claim that Turkey will be divided due to the democratization initiative and that his stance on the initiative overlaps with that of the government.
Sabah's Nazlı Ilıcak also says the Turkish Armed Forces (TSK) voicing its opinion on every issue does not befit a democratic country as she explains that “the democratization initiative is discussed at the National Security Council [MGK], which gives members of the military [the opportunity] to express their opinion on it, then the ball is with the government, and it is not the military that carries the responsibility of every step it will take.” Ilıcak also finds it strange for the opposition parties that remained silent in the wake of other political statements from commanders, and even supported them, to raise their voices this time. “Was not it CHP leader Deniz Baykal who said the TSK is free to express its opinion on political issues like a nongovernmental organization during the Feb. 28 post-modern coup period?” she asks. In her view, the reaction of the opposition parties is not because Başbuğ interfered in politics, but because he did not speak in a way which parallels their opinion regarding the democratization initiative.
Another Zaman columnist, Mehmet Yılmaz, is disturbed by Başbuğ's saying the region's public suffered from the aghas of terror and politics because he interprets this statement as an apparent indication of the military tutelage over politics in Turkey. “The tribal system in the Southeast region, which has been waging a war against the outlawed Kurdistan Workers' Party [PKK] along with the state for years, is being made a target. By putting politics and terrorism together, barriers are placed before those who seek a civilian solution to the Kurdish problem,” complains Yılmaz.
