The meeting and its aftermath was widely exaggerated due to the special status of the armed forces in Turkey. The TSK is the central institution of the tutelage system by which the state dominates the nation.In the absence of a strong working class and bourgeoisie, among the bureaucratic cohorts that ran the society, the army had the upper hand merely for being armed and its willingness to use force against society. Occasional coups and threats reinforced its unaccountable and untouchable place in the system.
It is against this backdrop that the last YAŞ meeting took place. Most of the press and opposition parties described the friction between the army brass and the government as a “crisis,” “conflict” or “showdown.” Yet, what we feared was an ulcer turned out to be gas. The insistence of the government, especially the prime minister, on not promoting generals implicated in conspiracies against the government or assigning them to important posts paid off and the chief of General Staff had to change his list of promotions and appointments to suit the civilian authority.
What is unusual about this procedure that is only routine in democratic countries? Well that is the rub: Turkey is not a full democracy, and the dominance of the TSK over politics has been very heavy until recently. What shook the grip of the military over the political system are two phenomena: First, the military has transgressed its professional place in the state system and intervened in politics. Thus, it has not only intruded into the functional spheres of other institutions, but has also imposed its ideological position on the rest of the state apparatus and society alike, stifling progress, diversity and freedoms. Its corporatist understanding of relations between the state and society and its own relations with society are neither compatible with pluralist democracy nor the expectations of the modern world.
Second, its influence, which may be interpreted as prolonging the status quo, places a heavy burden on the system. Maintaining the status quo means that the TSK will remain out of the administrative and fiscal control of the government, in short, the popular will. It will have an independent existence and not be accountable for its decisions, deeds or spending. The TSK has acquired this unique position that can be found only in military dictatorships through a series of coups.
It is ironic that opposition parties have been lamenting that this dictatorial or, at best, tutelary position of the military in the system will change. Do they do this out of their desire to keep the system intact or because it is the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) government, which has demonstrated the courage to change it? In any case, both reasons will weigh heavily on the future of the country, which is insufficiently developed, semi-democratic, internally fractured and conflicted and controlled by the law of force rather than force of law.
No public institution can be independent of the state it is serving. Professional autonomy is important for maintaining high professional standards and functional efficiency. But determining what to do for the sake of the people, imposing a certain understanding of a political regime and creating “internal enemies” and fighting against them for the sake of the “ideal republic” ought not be the duty of the armed forces. Such a maverick organization has to be reined in, and that is what has happened with the latest developments. First, the conspiratorial inclinations and elements within the TSK were exposed and brought to justice for the first time in republican history and, second, the prime minister (the government) and the president have used their powers to veto and alter the list of promotions and appointments made solely by the military as to who would be the next chief of General Staff and force commanders. This is a necessary step toward the normalization and democratization of the regime. But the initiative is too important to be left merely to the government. All of us have a stake in democracy.
