This past week has coincided with several military-involved or military-led events, from President Gül's oath-taking ceremony to the Aug. 30 Victory Day reception, marking a tense start and again raising questions about Turkey's future stability.
For the first time in Turkish history, top commanders from the country's politically powerful military, together with heads of some judicial institutions, were absent from the presidential oath-taking ceremony as a means of displaying their disapproval of his election.
Top commanders continued to display their displeasure with Gül's presidency during several military-led ceremonies using various symbolic actions, such as not addressing him as "My president."
In Turkey - whether in the civilian or military spheres - bureaucrats traditionally tend to address their seniors in a manner like "My president," "My prime minister" or "My deputy."
Thus, addressing Gül during a military graduation ceremony speech as "Mr. President" was among several methods the military resorted to in an effort to show its vexation with Gül's election on grounds that he has an Islamist background and that his wife wears a headscarf, symbolizing strict adherence to Islam.
To justify its stance, the TSK argues that its concern stems from fears that Gül will undermine the country's secular character. But in reality there has been increased belief that the TSK, which traditionally has shared power with the political leadership, fears losing its privileged status.
However increased reactions to both Chief of General Staff Gen. Yaşar Büyükanıt and other top commanders have been coming from Justice and Development Party (AK Party) critics like columnist Oktay Ekşi of Hürriyet. In analyzing the military's behavior last week, these people have a growing uneasiness with the military's meddling into political affairs.
Turkey does not have the luxury of wasting time with fights among elected bureaucrats and the political leadership since serious economic, social and foreign policy issues are pending resolution.
Yet the AK Party, receiving a solid mandate from around 47 percent of the voters in the July 22 elections, made a bad start when it failed to demonstrate that the armed bureaucracy -- the TSK -- is also under full control of the political leadership.
Last week prosecutors launched an investigation against the pro-Kurdish Democratic Society Party (DTP) represented in Parliament and its leader, Ahmet Türk, because the party alleged that military forces used chemical weapons against Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) terrorists.
Gen. Büyükanıt described their allegations as lies.
An investigation should have been launched against the allegations, not against those who made the allegations, recalled former military judge and Associate Professor Ümit Kardaş.
"The DTP's interlocutor is the government. Prosecutors should have launched an investigation into the allegations of chemical weapons usage. If those allegations were not true following an investigation, then necessary steps could have been taken against the DTP," Kardaş explained.
"The fact that prosecutors launched an investigation into those making the allegations indicates the existence of a grave situation on the part of the political leadership," Kardaş said angrily.
That incident itself has raised concerns among democratically minded Turks over whether the AK Party will continue appeasing the TSK in order to prolong its power rather than displaying its resolve to further supremacy of the rule of law, ending, among other things, military involvement in politics.
We liberal and democratic Turks wholeheartedly wish to see the AK Party further democracy "not in words, but in essence."
