Any sane person would find this statement correct in a country whose Constitution describes its regime as democratic and its state respectful of the rule of law. Alas, she was prosecuted according to an article of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK) which forbids “generating wrath and hatred among citizens and provoking social groups against each other and the state.”Neither her words nor the existing legal system, despite the authoritarian spirit of the Constitution that stifles civic liberties and individual freedoms, calls for this much suppression of freedom of speech and political initiative. The Constitution in effect has been penned by a consultative assembly that was hand picked by the ruling military junta and adopted in 1982. Since then at least one-third of its articles have been amended. However, it still contains articles “that cannot be changed or even proposed to be changed.” In a sense it has been turned into a sacred document for all time. The same document (Article 3) with its affiliated laws (concerning the military) gives the Turkish Armed Forces (TSK) the right and duty to protect and safeguard the state's secular character and its status defined as a nation-state and a unitary state as stipulated by Kemal Atatürk. At first sight one may not see any harm in this statement. But on a closer look one can detect several threats to a full-fledged democracy: 1. The legitimacy of the regime is attributed to Atatürk, not to the will of the people. 2. Guardianship of the regime is entrusted to the TSK, not the populace. 3. The interpretation of what “unitary” and “national” mean and their defense are taken for granted and left to the “guardian” rather than the source of legitimacy (or “sovereignty,” as coined in the Constitution), namely the citizens of the country.
So far the application, in this respect, has been corporatist and quite hostile to pluralism. For example, “unitary” has always been interpreted as “uniformist.” The state expected people/citizens to be alike, to look alike, to think and act alike. It treated society as an amorphous entity with no social differences (classes), cultures, beliefs, languages and political preferences. Any deviation in this regard has been severely punished, denying “deviants” their freedoms, bodily integrity (torture) and stripping them of their citizenship. Civilians were tried at military tribunals and at extra-legal (State Security) courts with a military judge (presiding or on the bench.) Generations of thinkers, public opinion leaders and intellectuals were squandered.
The “nation” of the nation-state that was exalted and found to be worthy of defending at all costs by the military was reduced to a privileged ethnic definition by the ruling elite disregarding the ethnic and cultural diversity of the country. The general qualities of citizenship came to be understood as ethnic Turkish, Muslim and Sunni. The rest were discriminated against whether they were Muslims or not. Even the majority of “proper” Muslims were looked upon as dangerous for the regime because they were conservative and not secular enough in their appearance and parlance. Coup after coup was staged by the military to keep the discontented society in line. Laws were interpreted and enforced in the most authoritarian way in order to keep order that was never really kept.
Now Turkey is at a crossroads to decide whether this self-betraying system can be dragged on or changed for a more liberal and contemporary one where the nation rules the state and its security apparatus, contrary to the way it is today. The closest example is Greece; the average Turk never understood why it has become a member of the European Union and why Turkey's membership is still debated.
Greeks never forgave its military putschists for turning their weapons against them (the nation) with the excuse of “national security and national interests.” The members of the Greek junta that ruled the country between 1967 and 1974 were imprisoned for mutiny against the nation and handed a death sentence that was later commuted to life. The ringleaders remained in prison until they were released because of ill health and old age in 1990 upon a written statement apologizing to the people that they betrayed. On the contrary Turkish putschists were hailed and lived in comfort and freedom after they took off their uniforms, handing the baton to younger generals who continued to dictate their terms to civilian governments and the nation, for that matter. If this is not a major difference between our next-door neighbor and us, compare it with their gains in democracy, affluence, social peace and a seat in the EU. Do you still want a military chaperone?
