The latest crisis over the appointments of top commanders during which the military fiercely opposed the political authority’s choice set another example of the military’s disobedience to civilian rulers. But the crisis came to an end when the government, exercising its legal right, appointed two top commanders. The emergence of the civilian authority’s assertion of its power has marked an important step on the road toward putting the Turkish Armed Forces (TSK) in their rightful position, i.e., back in the barracks, as was the case before the 1960 military coup, when the chief of General Staff was affiliated with the Ministry of Defense.
In fact, Turkish military law also stipulates obedience to the law while requiring strict discipline. On paper, Turkish military law in this respect falls in line with the laws of Western democracies.
Article 13 of the Internal Service Law envisages that the basic factor of military duty is discipline and defines what discipline is. The first and foremost definition of discipline has been obedience to the law, rules and regulations.
Therefore, the military’s attempt to defy the government’s authority, which is rooted in law and gives it the power to make a choice on the appointment of top commanders can be interpreted as an act of disobedience. The government’s intervention into the appointments, meanwhile, can be seen as enforcing discipline that had previously gotten lax.
Except for some rare incidents, this is the first time in the past 40 to 50 years that the government has exercised its legal right in full and intervened in military appointments, always perceived by the military as one of its critical and autonomous areas. In this way the government also tightened military discipline that had weakened as a result of five military interventions into Turkish politics.
Furthermore, several investigations and trials have been opened mainly into former and active TSK members, including generals, over allegations of drafting coup plans to unseat the government.
The government’s intervention into military appointments will, therefore, also have a long-term effect, deterring officers from even thinking about making coup plans.
Political authorities have long neglected to take necessary legal steps while refraining from even using existing laws to exercise their authority over the military. Now that the ruling authority has used this right, enshrined in law, it also means that what politics previously neglected is now being corrected by politics, too.
Professor Ümit Cizre of İstanbul’s Şehir University, one of the very few academics on civil-military relations in Turkey, described to the Taraf daily on Aug. 10 the crisis surrounding the top military appointments as a very serious crisis for the military but an excellent beginning toward normalization from the point of view of democracy.
There is a long way ahead of Turkey fully putting the TSK under complete civilian and democratic control. But this process may be shortened if a consensus is formed on and an awareness is developed about democratic control of the TSK being essential for democracy both in Parliament and within the society.
