Turkey’s gross national product (GNP) has reached approximately $1 trillion. This figure is the product of an open economy that can compete in external markets. It is impossible to restrict such a big economy by the anomaly of crony capitalism which exists under military tutelage. All around the world, entrepreneurs are benefiting from open, transparent and predictable markets. The dark labyrinths that military tutelage creates for the economy are against their entrepreneurial interests. It follows that there is a strong body of entrepreneurs that oppose military tutelage.Having grown beyond a size which the military can handle, the economy has also caused the capital groups that benefit from military tutelage to shrink. This also adversely affects the media groups that have traditionally allied themselves with these capital groups. The media organizations that have lost their power and the journalists working for these organizations are noisily talking about their uneasiness regarding this process. This uneasiness is being voiced with reference to a dichotomy between military dictatorship and democracy. Concepts such as a civilian coup, civilian tutelage or civilian fascism, fabricated in Turkey as the so-called opposites of coup d’états and military tutelage, are currently being used by these members of the media to mask their anti-democratic sentiments.
Coup d’état
“Civilian coup” is an injudicious description. “Coup” is implies a sudden or unexpected strike. Without using physical violence or without overthrowing the government through the use of weapons, or the threat thereof, you cannot make a “coup” happen. For a “coup” or strike to occur, it must be accompanied by violence. How can such violence come in civilian form? How can one talk about a “civilian coup”? If the masses revolt and flood everything that stands in their way and eventually overthrow the government, this is not defined as a “civilian coup,” but as a “revolution.”
If the measures that the government takes against the risks or dangers of a military coup are depicted as a “civilian coup,” then this is utterly and exceptionally foolish. Who will those already in office overthrow and why?
In Turkey, the government is democratically elected. In a democracy our right to dislike and criticize the government is as inviolable as our right to vote. But if you place your point of balance between the government and a military dictatorship, then everything you do is dubious. The only alternative to a democratically elected government is the opposition that could win another democratic election. To confront a democratically elected government with the threat of a military dictatorship and to make comparisons between the two is nothing but a pure inability to internalize democracy or a sort of diversion resulting from lack of a democratic culture or belief in democracy.
Thus, to say “I am against the military fascism, but I am also against the civilian fascism” is meaningless. Why? If a government is “fascist” it is by nature military. Can any government be fascist without having militaristic characteristics? Suppose it does. Suppose a democratically elected government decides to betray its people and become fascist. Where is such a government? Who fosters racism or imposes this racism on the society as a totalitarian ideology? The government which has launched the “democratic initiative”? Today, only the marginal groups who tend to label everyone who is not leftist as “fascist” in Turkey can use this “civilian” or normal “fascism.”
Civilian tutelage
The incongruity of such a comparison is all the more clear in this sentence: “I am against military fascism, but I am also against civilian fascism.” What does “military tutelage” or “armed tutelage” mean? Using the weapons given to it so that it can fight against the enemy, the military targets its own nation. Then, with the threat of using its weapons, it acts as a decision maker on behalf of me and it governs me. On the other hand, what does “civilian tutelage” mean? We already elect our civilian politicians so that they can make decisions and govern on behalf of us. Democracy is already a sort of “civilian tutelage” that functions via a representation mechanism and elections, isn’t it?
The right to talk nonsense is an indispensable part of democracy. That someone talks such nonsense which is then collectively repeated by others is not sufficient for us to take it seriously. If you are against democracy or democratic institutions, say it straight and openly. If a person can talk about a democratically elected government and a military dictatorship as two counterparts or comparable alternatives, can s/he have a place inside democracy?
“Tutelage” implies guardianship or control of a person who is not mentally mature. Since this person cannot choose between right or wrong and cannot make decisions that are in his/her interests, his/her guardian makes such decisions on his/her behalf. The author who first introduced the concept of tutelage to political science literature is Maurice Duverger, who is still accepted as a leading authority on the subject with his writings about political parties in 1940s. In categorizing political parties, Duverger makes a further distinction between single-party systems. In order to distinguish the single-party regimes that try to change society through an overall modernization project from the totalitarian characteristics of communist and fascist single-party systems that interfere with every area of social and individual life, he defines the former as the “tutelary single-party systems” and the latter as “totalitarian single-party systems.” At that time, the famed French political scientist could provide only one political party as an example of the “tutelary single-party” model: the Republican People’s Party (CHP).
The most commonly voiced objection to democracy is “what if the people make the wrong decision?” The proponents of this view maintain that if a nation that is not mature or advanced enough to govern itself is granted democracy, the country will be dragged into chaos. (However, the evident supremacy of democracy is that it provides means of correcting wrong decisions, which is not the case with dictatorial regimes.) Therefore, a guardian should be appointed. These guardians consist of a small minority of people who are more advanced and enlightened than the rest of their society. If the organized -- armed -- bureaucracy allies itself with intellectuals to act as the guardian of society, then a tutelary system will be established while democracy operates on the surface. Even if a multi-party regime is introduced under the requirements of the time, this tutelary order will continue to operate over the democratically elected government. The National Security Council (MGK) was the military tutelage’s tool of direct intervention while the president acted as an indirect tool for such intervention, this time conducted via the Constitutional Court and the Higher Education Board (YÖK). When Abdullah Gül was elected president this critical tutelary tool was eliminated, which eventually created a crisis.
Since “tutelage” is the name given to the control of the military and civilian ruling elites over the people elected by the people, those who talk about a “civilian tutelage” should explain what this phrase means. They should explain how the ruling Justice and Development Party’s (AK Party) tutelage operates. If the I-am-against-military-fascism-but-I-am-also-against-civilian-fascism dichotomy implies that such tutelage has been established over the military, then this is all nonsense. There is nothing more natural and correct than placing the military --which pokes its nose into every affair and continually commit faults -- under civilian control or tutelage.
There is a plain truth that this absurd debate teaches us. The tutelary system is being torn to pieces in Turkey. The commander who sits in his office attended by an aide-de-camp outside the door or the journalists who discuss the lead story in an editorial meeting no longer have a chance of playing their tutelary roles. All of those who complain about “civilian tutelage” are those who have lost their positions as “guardians,” aren’t they?
