If it had, clearly, the latest scoop (a month ago) about the so-called “Sledgehammer” case would have easily been hailed a victory for the bold sections of the Turkish press -- a rarity in this geography.A victory simply because a tiny daily’s insistent reporting led to a massive operation, the most comprehensive in republican history, involving the arrests of high-ranking officers, half of whom were further detained by the courts.
When important coverage regarding a globally vital transitional process in a highly strategic country fails, then one is faced with an essential need to put all the events in its full context. Otherwise, readers and viewers in democratic societies have no clue what is really going on in Turkey. Exceptions that stand out are, perhaps, The Economist, the Times and Süddeutsche Zeitung, keen on giving as complete a background as possible. Much more is needed to explain what is beyond a simple “secularists versus Islamists” description.
In such contexts it also becomes easy to fall in the traps of manipulation. One such example is the reporting in the Guardian as of late. In a story dated Feb. 22, the only source to comment on the unfolding arrests was Gareth Jenkins, whose pre-emptive attempts to issue a verdict on Ergenekon before the judges has been well-known in a report about the case.
The story quotes Jenkins saying the following. “The prosecutors have four days to turn these detentions into formal arrests and if they do that, there is no way the army will sit back and not respond. This is a power struggle between two authoritarian forces. The agenda behind Ergenekon is to reduce the power of the military.”
Set against other sources with differing views in the same story, this quote fulfills, unfortunately, an aim to manipulate. Jenkins may be justified in his mistrust of the prosecutors chasing illegal activity within the military, but he shows not only disrespect for the judges who act independently from the prosecutors but also ignores the fact that the current head of the Turkish army, Gen. İlker Başbuğ, has repeatedly underlined a personal and institutional respect for the rule of law, saying, “We will remain committed to the law.” So far, he and his top brass has -- despite being vocally anxious -- not deviated from that commitment. There seems to be no reason why he would just because judges decide on some detainments and some releases. There is an agreement at the top that the legal processes must go on without any intervention by other parties. Furthermore, to a considerable segment of the Turkish society Ergenekon is about illegal, undemocratic political activity to make Parliament dysfunctional, and it has revealed reasonable suspicion that rogue elements within the army have been deeply involved.
So the challenge for serious news outlets becomes, particularly in such contexts, relying on reliable sources and experts whose independent judgments, not visible missionary activities under such disguise, must be conveyed to an unknowing public. Jenkins does not belong to this group.
There is more misinformation in that article. In a paragraph, it says, “Analysts suggested that the arrests were aimed at trying officers before the constitutional court’s ruling could be recorded in the official gazette, when it would become effective.”
Even if one leaves aside who that “analyst” might be, the problem is that when the detailed reasoning of the Constitutional Court of Turkey (about it overruling last year’s reform in curbing the jurisdiction of the military judiciary vis-à-vis the civilian one) is issued by the Official Gazette (which means that the reform is from that moment on invalid), there will be inevitably a new fight between the military and civilian prosecutors, who will proceed with cases like Sledgehammer, Poyrazköy, etc. The “analysis” suggests that there has been a “hijacking attempt” by the civilian prosecutors, but the legal fact suggests that it may simply not be true.
The latest developments are not merely about a tug of war between the military and the government. It is, more importantly, about equality before the law and how to make a more efficient rule of law. Every decent observer of Turkey knows that the military and some segments of the high judiciary -- as well as large bulks of the bureaucracy, including the police -- have been enjoying de facto impunity before the law. What we are witnessing is an attempt to invite citizens to give up clandestine activity to topple elected politicians from the government. It will be a painful and lengthy process, and it is only the beginning.
