Pro-coup journalists

We spent almost all of the 20th century under an authoritarian and semi-autocratic regime. After 27 years of a one-party political system, Turkey changed to a multi-party system in the last half of the century. On May 27, 1960 -- 10 years later -- the military overthrew the government. Different military interventions of different levels of intensity occurred on March 12, 1970, Sept. 12, 1980 and Feb. 28, 1997. As for the April 27, 2007 midnight e-memorandum, many people perceive it as a postmodern intervention. It is certain that the military was the major actor during each of these periods. Generally speaking, the system in Turkey did not hold the military responsible, despite the fact that the military deeply affected politics. The government was left to handle technical and routine jobs, most of which were mundane and irritating.

But there were underlying truths behind this picture. While military officers took the limelight when they intervened in civil politics, some civil groups assumed important roles prior to the intervention to encourage and prepare the groundwork for the military intervention. This is a point that is often overlooked when assessing intervention processes. Looking back, we can identify the efforts to pave the way of two weekly magazines, Akbaba and Yankı, for the bloody May 27 military intervention. Erol Simavi, the previous owner of Hürriyet, one of the most influential newspapers on domestic politics, had said: “The media are known as the fourth estate. The media is one estate. I prepare the military for the interventions, then I step aside and drink my coffee.” More importantly, Kenan Evren, the general of the Sept. 12 military coup, had said, “Do not upset me or else I will announce the civil institutions that encouraged us to make an intervention.” Evren made this comment in response to civilians who had blamed the military alone for the coup, which at that time had ended and the military administration had become subject to harsh criticism. When criticisms began, those who prepared the coup switched over to the “civilian side” and adopted a democratic, human rights and civil political stance as if they were not the instigators of the coup.

We experienced a similar situation, but more openly, during the presidential election. Despite Abdullah Gül’s election, those who push the military into politics are still insisting on their plans. That is why the military chief is constantly in the limelight, why his words are interpreted differently and why provocative questions are asked.

For professional journalism, this is a scandal and, more importantly, it is a crime. They should be handled as coup-encouraging questions and provocative statements.

Since the democratic regime and civil politics are still trying to recover from the damage of the coups, those who ask coup-provoking questions should be relieved of their duties. But first, an investigation should be launched into the prosecutors who ignore these journalists. Coup supporters and media members who cooperate with them, both of which are part of a conspiracy theory against the regime, will subject the regime to great danger.