Behind closed doors, you can put any kind of scenario into force. … It was a blow, not only to the system and politics, but also to the economy. … When you analyze some bankrupt banks, you come across a loss that cannot be explained. There are secrets, hard to detect embezzlements. … We identify these kinds of secret payments, but it is very difficult to find what the money is spent on by examining the records. … When I think about this topic, I think the money was used to achieve certain political goals, to finance certain groups and to finance social engineering, provocative and dark activities.” (Read Feb. 3, 2010, edition of Today’s Zaman for details.)
The one issue that the junta never forgets when planning a coup is the issue of financial activities. This subject hasn’t/couldn’t receive the attention it deserves, especially in the Ergenekon case. Unfortunately, a portion of the business world has a questionable past when it comes to its relationship with coups. Since the system is actually a military tutelage regime, a portion of businessmen are connected to the system by a strong link. In other words, there has been a give-and-take relationship ever since the early years of the republic. As a piece of the established order, big capital is always beside the status quo. Then there is the reality that during the multiparty period, every ruling power tried to produce their own group of rich people.
Returning to the coup-big capital relationship, there are three different attitudes in question.
The first is approaching the matter in light of personal interests. In other words, no matter what happens in the country, whoever comes to power or whether a coup happens, your only concern is “your business.” Ignoring social tensions, polarization, the halting of democracy, torture and suspicious murders and being only concerned with profits and self-interests is a mentality that is undemocratic, immoral and inhumane.
The second is openly supporting coup leaders. Businessmen with this attitude believe it when coup leaders say, “We are coming.” Instead of discretionary funds, they provide bigger funding to coup leaders and give them opportunities. In return, these businessmen are compensated amply for their patriotism during coup periods.
The third attitude is the “what doesn’t hurt me, doesn’t concern me” attitude. These people defend that they are “in between” and don’t take a side. They say they support democracy but that there isn’t much that can be done.
But all three have one common denominator: They can’t tolerate the Justice and Development Party (AK Party). Bringing down the AK Party is their common passion and goal.
They say, “OK, coups and military interventions are wrong, but we can’t tolerate the AK Party staying in power.” It is for this reason that the constant coup planning by the junta doesn’t surprise them or come as strange to them. (What they do regard as strange is the Taraf daily.)
The facts in Turkey and in the world compel us to reconsider the major capital that has pioneered industrialization and development in Turkey.
New Turkish Industrialists and Businessmen’s Association (TÜSİAD) Chairwoman Ümit Boyner’s writing “on the murder of Journalist Abdi İpekçi” should be regarded in this respect. She notes that the potential structures behind suspicious murders are causes of anxiety in the name of democracy and law.
“It is an obligation and our debt to remove the curtain behind the murders for the sake of consolidating the democratic foundation. As TÜSİAD, we will continue to support and follow efforts to solve this and similar murders within the scope of establishing a democracy that is at a higher standard and an effective state of law,” she said.
We hope this announcement is a precursor to a new period. We hope Republican People’s Party (CHP) leader Deniz Baykal is hearing TÜSİAD’s concerns.
