As I wrote in past weeks, being aware that they have lost a considerable amount of political power, our generals have been trying to convince the public that they do not have any objection to democracy. It is good that Gen. Başbuğ says this, as the next step will be to ask how he has put his rhetoric into action. Actions speak louder than words. To put it differently, let me paraphrase former Chief of General Staff Gen. Yaşar Büyükanıt: One has to be a democrat in essence, not just in words. Başbuğ stated forcefully this week that the military is not against democracy. He needs to show us that the military is doing everything it can to help Turkey raise its democratic standards. He needs to show us that our generals fully respect people's democratic choices even if they do not like those choices. He has to be able to openly and publicly condemn active duty or retired military officers who dislike democracy. We know that he is able to condemn people if they are civilians. So he should be able to condemn military officers as well.
Some commentators claim that he has fallen short of condemning militarist enemies of democracy as he has to be careful not to break the hearts of military officers who are not democracy friendly. But doesn't saying this mean that Başbuğ has not told the truth about the military vis-à-vis democracy? Remember, he stated that not even a single member of the military could oppose democracy. Assuming that this is true, then there is no one in the military that Gen. Başbuğ has to be careful about if he wants to condemn enemies of democracy. But we know that he does not say even slightly negative things about hostility towards democracy, even in the abstract. He does not have to mention names, but he can easily condemn the idea. He does not do that, and I wonder why. Some may also claim that he does not do so because he does not want to offend former generals who were his superiors and are now reportedly known as enemies of democracy. But we live in a country where democracy is so fragile that in the last 59 years, there were four military coups and an unashamed military intervention into presidential elections only two years ago; about 10 years of these 59 years were under direct military rule. Is defending democracy and condemning its enemies much less worthy than showing solidarity with ex-generals who simply abhor the very same people who have fed them with their taxes and will continue to feed them until they die?
When it comes to defending the military's honor, Gen. Başbuğ even becomes aggressive, and to a certain extent, what he does is understandable and legitimate. But one wonders if our military is weaker than democracy in this country. Although it is their democratic right, civilians have never been able to intervene in the military, but as I mentioned above, the military has massacred our democracy several times. It is legitimate to expect convincing statements from its members and commanders that it will not happen another time. Given the fact that several active duty and retired soldiers have been caught with secret weapons, assassination plans and the like are now being tried in the Ergenekon terror organization case, the public wonders what the chief of general staff thinks about these acts and the like. Saying that it is an ongoing judicial case does not convince anyone. As I said, he can condemn these acts at least in abstract terms. If he does not have time, he can make time by shortening his harangues about civil society, Weber, religion, out-of-fashion concepts, Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft and the like.
