The military, which has come to realize the failure of methods of intervention similar to those of the 1961, 1980 and 1997 coups or the 2007 e-memorandum, but is unwilling to stop its quest for power, is now searching for new ways to organize and supervise the country's political and social spheres. Instead of a direct strategy to this end, it is following a very intricate, sophisticated and professional strategy. When we look at the media, we see that this strategy has worked. Almost all reporters and columnists are pleased with Chief of General Staff Gen. İlker Başbuğ's emphasis on democracy and his assurance that coup plotters cannot exist or find shelter within the military. But the issue rests on the answer to one particular question: "What kind of democracy?" A modern democracy where the military is under the control of elected civilians, or a "tutelage democracy" like that of 1961?
The case is no longer about a military coup; that case has been closed. They tried it in 2003 and 2004 but they failed, and it is very unlikely that they will ever succeed again. Anyone in this day and age who still thinks of planning a coup must have lost his mind. Turkey is a country that has become integrated into the global economy. If a coup is carried out, the coup leaders will not be able to pay the salaries of the military officers, and within three months the country will go bankrupt. An actual coup would fracture the armed forces and divide Turkey. The atmosphere of terror created by the coup would push the Kurds to take action, and no one would be able to stop them or ask them where they are going. They will win international support both from governments and from the public.
"White Turks" who want the ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party) to go away but don't care how they go will pack up their belongings -- that is, if they have anything left - and flee abroad.
In other words, the current world order will not allow a coup to succeed. Başbuğ's attendance at Parliament to listen to US President Barack Obama as he delivered his speech to the Turkish nation was a sign of his preparedness to comply with the "world order." The only available option is not a "military administration," but a continuation of the "tutelage regime" that was introduced with the 1961 Constitution. Turkey's social and economic transformation, the EU membership process and the initiatives of progressive political actors broke the old tutelage order. Now the goal is to fix it.
We must understand Başbuğ's claim that "coup planners cannot exist or find shelter within the military" in this context. Başbuğ is a very strategy-minded official. He knows very well what is and isn't possible.
Certainly he is against coups. No rational officer would ever think about a coup in the current world and under current conditions in Turkey. Again, the issue is not about coups. Başbuğ doesn't support coups, but that doesn't mean he wants to remove the military's tutelage over politics. What we have before us is a "neo-militarist" approach. It is a kind of "militarism with a velvet glove" -- or should I say a kind of Kemalism?
Having clearly understood that interventions like those of 1997 and 2007 backfire and that the military has limited its own scope of power and damaged its reputation, Başbuğ is trying to pave the way for a new path for the military to increase its political power and social legitimacy. The communication strategy that he is following is geared toward reintroducing the "tutelage regime" and creating new and lasting developments. By developments I am not referring to the Kurdish issue or democratic issues. I mean a new language and a new and professional communication style that will dominate the military, politics and society.
But are political institutions and Turkish society OK with this? The future of democracy depends on the stance taken against these developments.
