If a ‘modern general’ runs out of patience

But what about his commitment to “modern political values”? Does he believe in the virtue of democracy? In his deeds, we do not see any sign that he is prepared to accept the end of the military tutelage over politics in Turkey. On the contrary, he seems extremely nervous about developments that undermine the political power of the military. He declares that coup plotters cannot remain in the military, but when it comes to practice, coup plots are being covered up.

Does Gen. Başbuğ abide by the principles of the rule of law as “a modern general”? He is a commander who is very reluctant to start legal proceedings against military personnel who are accused of illegal and extra-duty activities. In his last interview with Habertürk, he complained that judicial investigations destroyed his military’s morale. This “modern general” was also criticized by the European Commission in its 2009 report for putting pressure on the judiciary:

“The armed forces continued to exercise undue political influence via formal and informal mechanisms. Senior members of the armed forces have expressed their opinion on domestic and foreign policy issues including Cyprus, the ethnic structure, the Southeast, secularism, political parties and non-military issues several times. On a number of occasions, the General Staff reacted publicly to politicians and media reports. During the press meeting in April, the chief of general staff made comments on the Ergenekon case and on the indictment, putting the judiciary under pressure.”

Does he respect freedom of expression? Gen. Başbuğ constantly accuses the critics of militarism and military intervention in politics of being part of a plot to weaken the military and serving foreign interests. He claims that these critics are implementing a “psychological operation against the military.”

Can a general constantly making remarks about domestic political developments be regarded as “modern”? We do not hear Gen. Başbuğ speaking on hardcore security issues, on technological developments in the area of warfare, on the modernization of the Turkish military, etc. What he always talks about is domestic political affairs.

Is this an attitude expected of a “modern general” in the West? Or is it only tolerable once it comes to Turkey. Well, some in the West and who write for Western media may think such things are tolerable in Turkey. But for me, and I am sure for many democrats who demand a world-class democratic regime in Turkey, such a top military officer is not tolerable and acceptable.

I hate this habit of lowering the standards of “modernity,” democracy and the rule of law when it comes to Turkey. The Economist’s analysis reflects the Orientalist logic of “particularities of the East” that leads to the description of such a general as “modern enough” for Turkey.

Does a modern general give two lengthy interviews to two newspapers within a week making comments about domestic politics? I would not know the name of the chief of general staff if he were a “modern” one as is the case for an ordinary British or French citizen.

I really love to have a “modern” chief of general staff. A modern chief of general staff is one whom I would not write an article about. If Başbuğ were a modern general, I would not care who he is, what he thinks and what he does since it would all be irrelevant to understanding and explaining Turkish politics.

A modern general does not threaten his own citizens as Gen. Başbuğ did a couple of times. Even in his last interview, he continued to threaten citizens, journalists, intellectuals and politicians with disclosing the information that they have. He said: “If we run out of patience, we will start sharing with the public all we know. We have lots of information.”

I now wonder what a “modern general” will do when he runs out of patience. Stage a military coup or start a dirty campaign against the criticism of the military? And then I wonder what the writers of the Economist will write about him.