Coups and Turks
 
 
  |  
  |  
  |  
  |  
RSS
  |  
  |  
  |  
25 May 2013 Saturday
 
 
 
 
 
 
Columnists 06 May 2012, Sunday 1 0 0 0
DOĞU ERGİL
d.ergil@todayszaman.com

Coups and Turks

Much has been written against or in defense of military coups, especially in countries where they are frequent. Even coups need reasons to be, and the putchists need support of some kind to direct their weapons against the putative “enemies” of the nation within national boundaries.

Indeed, coups are generally realized by military officers either in groups -- juntas -- or within the chain of command, therefore implicating the whole military apparatus. Then an army is pitted against the very nation that created it and which it has sworn to serve and protect.

Military coups are acts of holding the nation to ransom and treating it as a hostage or a criminal gang just because it does not obey the orders of those who point their guns against it in the name of public order and national security.

Coups also expose the flawed nature of nationalism. If the definition of a nation is narrower than the population of a sovereign country, the result is the “other” or potential enemies being designated within the country’s borders. Whenever the likelihood of any crisis of the system -- be it political or economic -- arises, these “enemies” become the target of public wrath. The army moves to protect the nation from the exaggerated “threat” they pose.

Unfortunately, Turkey has not been immune to this farcical play staged so frequently, therefore minimizing its democracy and delaying its development. Recently, a government with enough public support behind it has paved the way for the prosecution of the old culprits who dared to threaten the nation and usurp power more than once. But more importantly an opportunity has arisen for us, the people, to judge ourselves and to clearly see our collaboration with the putchists who we accepted as “saviors” from imaginary or fabricated dangers and enemies.

The MetroPoll Strategic and Social Research Center conducted a survey in the last days of April into our controversial affair with coups and their perpetrators. The findings are as follows:

When people were asked whether they support military coups or not, 79.1 percent answered in the negative, while 17.1 percent said “yes” and 3.8 percent had no answer or idea (NAI). It is interesting to note that 24.4 percent of the supporters of the Republican People’s Party (CHP) and 27.5 percent of the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) said they condone coups. What does this mean?

At least one-quarter of the supporters of these (MHP and CHP) parties harbor mixed feelings. One explanation is that their failure to compete with the incumbent Justice and Development Party (AKP) has thwarted their vision. Their wrath has overcome their sense of democracy and their function as political parties. Another explanation is that a quarter of their followers never really believed in popular will and politics as the choice of the majority. Instead, they sought the state’s -- read this as the army’s -- guidance in public life.

When asked whether military coups have done any good in Turkey, the picture is more realistic. A full 11.7 percent of the electorate said “yes,” while 82.4 percent said “no.” Five percent had NAI. The most fervent opponent of coups is the (pro-Kurdish) Peace and Democracy Party (BDP) with 91.1 percent of BDP supporters against them. This is understandable because Kurds suffered the most during military rule and its repercussions.

Fourteen percent of CHP followers and 22.1 percent of MHP followers think coups have done good in Turkey, while this figure is below 10 percent in other parties.

When asked whether coups could be avoided “if politicians were more able and determined,” 74.3 percent of the electorate said “yes,” 21.8 percent said “no” and 4 percent had NAI. These figures indicate that while the majority of the people do not condone coups, they also blame the politicians for not being able and determined enough to prevent them. Those who think along these lines make up as much as 73-80 percent of the four political parties in Parliament.

When asked whether they find it appropriate and necessary to judge the putchists in a court of law or not, 67.7 percent of the electorate said “yes,” while 27.1 percent said “no” and 5.2 percent had NAI. When broken down into party affiliations, as opposed to 81.4 percent of AKP supporters and 86.7 percent of BDP supporters, only 50 percent of CHP and 46.6 percent of MHP followers support the prosecution and litigation of the putchists.

I will continue sharing the results of the survey with you. In any case it is obvious that there is a putchist streak in Turkish politics, even within the political parties that ought to be the guardians or at least agents of democracy. That is eerie to know.

Columnists Previous articles of the columnist
20 May 2013
Syria in the eye of the beholder
19 May 2013
Syria between a rock and a hard place
14 May 2013
Syria exploding
12 May 2013
Awakening
7 May 2013
Iraq in turmoil (1)
5 May 2013
Questions and sincerity
30 April 2013
Poisonous questions
28 April 2013
Pride and Prejudice
23 April 2013
Scenes from Central Anatolia
21 April 2013
Official vs. Civic
16 April 2013
Iraqi Turkmens
14 April 2013
Oh Kurd (2)
9 April 2013
Oh Kurd (1)
7 April 2013
Oh Turk, (2)
2 April 2013
Oh Turk,
31 March 2013
Syria and Kurds
26 March 2013
Israel's apology
24 March 2013
Time to celebrate
19 March 2013
Meltdown
17 March 2013
A new phase in globalization
12 March 2013
A day for women
10 March 2013
EU membership: realities and aspirations
5 March 2013
The leak and the aftermath
3 March 2013
Where to tap?
26 February 2013
Syrian stalemate and the tragedy of inaction
24 February 2013
Presidency and the ‘grand peace’ offer
19 February 2013
Hope and caution
17 February 2013
Political perceptions
12 February 2013
Europe vs. Asia; elite vs. public
10 February 2013
Scenarios in the Syrian conflict
5 February 2013
Assessment of political and economic trends
3 February 2013
From Brussels to Shanghai
29 January 2013
Egypt and Iran
27 January 2013
‘Open Networks, Closed Regimes’
22 January 2013
Kurdish landscape is bustling
20 January 2013
Dividends of peace
15 January 2013
Peace with the dragon
13 January 2013
Dangers ahead
8 January 2013
Changes and challenges to understanding the Kurdish problem
6 January 2013
New year, new constitution?
1 January 2013
The 8 most interesting things we learned in 2012
30 December 2012
A 2012 account of Turkish foreign policy
25 December 2012
Interesting developments
23 December 2012
Iraqi prospects in Kurdish parentheses
18 December 2012
Turkey’s popularity in the Middle East
16 December 2012
Civil war in words and deeds
11 December 2012
Suicides in the army
9 December 2012
The pro-coup makeup in our DNA
4 December 2012
The secret army
2 December 2012
Violence against women
27 November 2012
The Kurdish house
25 November 2012
After the hunger strikes
20 November 2012
Is this a war?
18 November 2012
Life is a mirror: You get what you give
13 November 2012
Remembering and contemplating Atatürk
11 November 2012
Ending hunger strikes and political folly
6 November 2012
Elections and US foreign policy debate
23 October 2012
A slightly different competition
21 October 2012
Syria tough test for goals of ex-Ottomans
16 October 2012
Strategic depth (1)
9 October 2012
On war
7 October 2012
Another name for Syria: uncertainty
2 October 2012
Regional dynamics at play at the AKP congress
30 September 2012
The AKP congress
25 September 2012
Turkey, Israel and Egypt
23 September 2012
Systemic flaws
18 September 2012
On extremism
16 September 2012
Shadow boxing
11 September 2012
Tenacity of Syrian regime
9 September 2012
Questions and prejudices
4 September 2012
The Syrian enigma
2 September 2012
A bold new world?
28 August 2012
Here we stand?
26 August 2012
Questioning the Kurdish question
21 August 2012
US elections frivolous games
19 August 2012
One more time
14 August 2012
Syrian challenges
12 August 2012
Turkey’s Kurdish imbroglio as seen from outside
7 August 2012
Brotherhood?
5 August 2012
Syria unfolding
31 July 2012
Syria and Turkey: a friendship that went astray
29 July 2012
Whither goes the regime change in Syria
24 July 2012
Two-tier war in Syria
22 July 2012
Living with the hegemon
17 July 2012
Differing official rhetoric and common problems
15 July 2012
Turkey in the Syrian ‘problem’
10 July 2012
Strangers in their own land
8 July 2012
Russia and Israel on Syria
3 July 2012
The princess and the phoenix
1 July 2012
Reciprocity
26 June 2012
An intricate strategy
24 June 2012
Egypt’s hijacked spring
19 June 2012
Hopeful developments
17 June 2012
Dynamics of the Syrian conflict
12 June 2012
Kurdish issue redux
10 June 2012
The other world
5 June 2012
The abortion debate and beyond
3 June 2012
Conquest and discovery
29 May 2012
NATO’S near future
27 May 2012
Qualities of power
...