On the day the said detentions were made as the first of their kind in scope in Turkey, Gen. İlker Başbuğ convened all the generals and admirals at the General Staff headquarters, and, after the meeting, made a single-sentence statement, which no one can doubt was intended to exert pressure on, and intimidate and discourage prosecutors and judges, and which was posted on the official Web site of the TSK.This statement reads, “A meeting was held at the General Staff headquarters with the participation of all generals and admirals of the Turkish Armed Forces in order to evaluate the serious situation that erupted under an investigation being conducted by the İstanbul Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office.”
Thanks to this statement, we have learned that Gen. Başbuğ, representing the TSK, defines as a “serious situation” the judicial authorities’ move to investigate suspects who are accused of being part of the junta group preparing to overthrow the government. Perhaps we should ask Başbuğ and other generals which one is a more “serious situation:” preparing coup plans to overthrow a democratically elected legitimate government or the judicial authorities’ moving to investigate and punish those who dare to turn the weapons entrusted to them by the nation for use in defense of the country against the will of that nation? Is Mr. Başbuğ, like all the generals and admirals who attended the meetings, aware of what he is saying?
As you know, some of the generals, admirals and other military officers who were detained on charges of attempting to overthrow the government are being arrested by the court to which they are referred. The number of arrests during this operation has already exceeded 20. But for whatever reason, the General Staff, failing to withstand the due process of law, moved to make a very strange intervention that would devastate the balance between state institutions, during the last few days. An attempt was made to persuade Deputy Prime Minister Cemil Çiçek -- who felt the need to meet with the chief of general staff with strange timing and reasons unknown to us -- to give the nod to no litigation against active military officers in what was disguised as a “suggestion.” With this and other such impositions which you will hear more about in the current issue of Today’s Zaman, I think, Mr. Başbuğ seems to be confusing apples with pears. Otherwise, he would not attempt to impose weird “suggestions” on the executive about an investigation that is being conducted by the judiciary.
It would still be acceptable if Mr. Başbuğ was the only one who is confusing apples with pears. What about the meeting between President Abdullah Gül, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Başbuğ held at the Çankaya presidential residence and chaired by Gül? In which democratic state governed by the rule of law with a functional principle of the separation of powers does the head of state feel the need to sponsor a reconciliatory meeting between the head of the executive and the head of an institution subordinated to the executive? In which democratic state governed by the rule of law is the head of an institution subordinated to the executive treated as the head of some fourth power?
Certainly, President Gül may hold this meeting -- which appears to be a search for reconciliation -- between the Parliament speaker as the head of the legislative and the prime minister as the head of the executive, if needed. Or a similar meeting might be held between the head of the judiciary and the prime minister -- which may still be considered as a little strange -- if need be. But it is never understandable or acceptable in terms of the principles of a democratic state governed by the rule of law based on the separation of powers, for a president, a popular and respected figure in society, to act as a mediator and hold a meeting around a round table between the prime minister and the chief of general staff, who is hierarchically inferior to the prime minister, about a matter that concerns the judiciary, which is a separate and independent power, as if there is a personal matter between them. Frankly speaking, this scene and the convention that it has just established is not comforting.
Based on this incident, someday we may find ourselves in the strange position of expecting Mr. President to meddle in a potential disagreement that may arise between the prime minister and any executive body, to try to conciliate the parties who have hierarchical relations between them, or to act as an arbitrator between them. For instance, departing from this weird example, will Mr. President consider acting as a mediator or arbitrator between the prime minister or a minister and a police chief or a general director who refuses to abide by the orders issued by the prime minister or the said minister?
If you start to button up from the wrong hole, errors and oddities will come rushing one after another, as seen in the last example. This is what happens naturally when the head of the executive hesitates to use the mandate given by the nation or its legal rights against the obvious usurpation of powers and authorities and offenses committed by an organ subordinated to the executive. Consequently, he is obliged to attend a meeting which is directly related to him (indeed the subject matter is a judicial investigation about the military officers) and which aims to reconcile him with a bureaucrat who is supposed to be subordinated to him and which can be defined as weird in a single word. Perhaps, even good intentions may lead to undesirable harm.
