For a majority of the press representatives, you may take it for granted, it is still -- even in 2009 -- a matter of pride, a proof of the "sui generis" nature of Turkey that the top command section of the country be given complete freedom to convey an institutional view on political and social issues of major scale. I did not have to use any rapid therapy to measure the level of joy among some colleagues who, year after year, positioned the military -- by a disguised militarist elitism -- as if it was the guiding force in politics seemingly based on "one man, one vote."
Only a selected few among them were willing to discuss the rationale of excluding a major media group (Zaman) and the liberal Taraf daily from participating in the event. Those who were otherwise overenthusiastic to lash out against the government-imposed accreditation bans often looked the other way when I invited them to comment on the discrimination against their colleagues. In fact, such was the mood among them that even a complete stranger could feel the deeply rooted polarity, tearing the Turkish press apart. There were many who pretended not to see those whom they felt "belonged to the other camp." They avoided even a small nod in salute.
This is telling of how difficult it will continue to be to communicate and manage the painful change Turkey stands in the middle of.
What can be said of the lengthy address of Chief of General Staff Gen. İlker Başbuğ -- a speech that aimed to comment on affairs that were tied to the military structure, but more so to interfere in (albeit gently and calmly) political matters that should fall exclusively within Parliament's jurisdiction?
Knowing Başbuğ's interest in political/social science and history, one would expect him to deliver a text filled with academic references. He did, but as he has on a couple of occasions before, he displayed a shallow and unnuanced pattern on civilian-military relations, politics of ethnicity (in particular the Kurdish issue) and the concept of secularism à la Turque. On the whole, the text seemed to be written to defend the status quo, to protect the troubled Constitution as it is, to reconfirm the army's "unchangeable" position of a widening group (minority) rights and a fierce challenge to what Başbuğ sees as a "primary threat to modernity": movements and communities that have an "axis of religion" (referring without a doubt to the Gülen movement).
Although he phrased very clearly elsewhere in his address that "the military is and fully will respect democracy," Başbuğ's various comments contradicted that. On civilian-military relations, Başbuğ avoided going into whether or not he thinks the subordination of his position to the Ministry of Defense is timely. Instead, he referred to Article 5 of the Constitution, which guarantees the territorial integrity and unitary nature of Turkey and the defense of the republic and democracy. This is to be understood as follows: It will be up to the military to determine the course of the country and not Parliament. Secondly, it is also meant to be understood as there being no expectations of the military to even revise the law to subordinate the army to civilian politics and "pull it to its fundamental, professional role of defending the territory."
The general devoted a large part (almost two-thirds) of his speech to what he obviously sees as the greatest cause of concern for the stability of Turkey: Kurds and the bloody fight of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK). He updated some information: The figure of dead and wounded Kurds between 1984 and today stand at around 40,000, he said. (Add almost 5,000 from the security forces and 6,000 civilians to the dead and you have the new picture.) This section of the speech was devoted to conceptualize a "change" of terminology. He suggested we use "people of Turkey" instead of "Turkish people," which -- if you are optimistic -- should be noted as a step forward. To me, it is an outdated proposal and will have no impact at all because Başbuğ was quick to say no to "group rights." It was a response to US President Barack Obama's usage of "Kurdish minority." Başbuğ's theory was that nation-states prefer individual rights. He seemed to forget that he would gladly use "Turkish minority" of some people in Bulgaria (a nation-state) and have no objections at all of their representation through politics based on ethnic identity. There collapsed his analysis.
His fierce (almost threatening) words against religious movements "which want to act like political actors" is also a huge subject to be debated. Başbuğ avoided, even there, the overwhelming sociological view that peaceful communities as such are actually part of modernity. His firm stance -- based on a notion of being under threat -- could only be explained by the fact that the internal gap between the institutions is now wide open, and this must be overcome by candid communication.
The speech once more showed that Turkey has a very thorny path to traverse in the process of change and only a constant search and reach for consensus will save it.
