It is possible to eradicate Ergenekon, but how?
by
AHMET TURAN AYHAN*

French statesman Cardinal Richelieu, seen as the father of the modern state system, underlines that logic entails a geometrical proportion between the object on which force is exerted and the object that exerts the force. Richelieu is right, and this proportion has never become so important for our democracy.

The need for cooperation among all social groups against the Ergenekon beast is greater than ever. Will the left continue to maintain its intentional silence against this beast just because of its opposition to the ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party)? Where is the revolutionary spirit of the 1960s? If the left wants to show that it relies on universal experience, then it should adopt a more sensible course of action in the face of the threat in question.

Plots to overthrow the government and claims about the assassination of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan imply that Ergenekon sees its salvation in the end of the AK Party government. The policies that the government will adopt will show how realistic its perceptions about the threat in question are. The real indicators about the magnitude and authenticity of the threat are closely related to whether the government intends to abandon the policy of balance that it has been pursuing for some time.

Democratic crossroads

We are at the crossroads for a democratic republic, and this junction offers us two options. The first one is to eradicate Gladio so that it will never be functional again in this country. To do this, we must make our republic more democratic. There is no doubt that democratization is closely related to a political culture and mental codes, but as Søren Kierkegaard put it, it is not possible to create basic constants on a floating ground.

The second option is to maintain the struggle on a legal basis. This method, too, will be effective to a certain extent with partial achievements, but Gladio will continue to exist. In this regard, Italy's operation to eradicate Gladio is a good example. Italy fought on many different fronts in order to destroy its Gladio. With a radical systemic change, Italy managed to make Gladio a thing of the past.

The first method entails a difficult and problematic process while the second only gets us through the day. This is a junction at which we will choose either to lose energy and time because of the authoritarian state paradigm's anachronism, which disrupts democracy, or to build a model democracy by implementing radical steps of democratization. Having tried its coup generals, Greece today enjoys the privilege of becoming a democratic country living up to European Union standards. Turkey, too, has the democratic maturity to create its own success story. If the government shows that it has the capability to correctly analyze and manage the process, we will see this process make progress more quickly. Boosting the EU bid instead of pursuing a policy of balance

This is the best definition of the policy the government has been pursuing for some time. The policy of balance is a station for occasional correct moves as well as for a lack of proper action attributable to fear. If this is the result of a high-profile strategy that relies on the assumption that some issues can be solved only when their time is due, then there is no problem. However, if the government refrains from taking effective actions because of some sort of pressure on it, then the policy of balance pursued with such considerations will neither be beneficial to the government nor to the country. With the policy of balance, it is hard to pursue permanent policies or change/transform the system.

During its early years in office, the AK Party effectively used the EU process to legalize its legitimacy and knew how to use the external support it could gather as a shield against reactionaryism-centered attacks from inside. Its giant steps toward full EU membership made the AK Party the architect of the silent revolution in Turkey that the world is watching with awe. It is now a necessity for the government to grab the EU process with both hands and use the external support as leverage for structural changes. This necessity makes the policy of balance further meaningless. As history has shown us, no radical reform has gained momentum without strong external support, and this is the reality that we all must face and accept. The question is not whether the EU is sincere in this process or not, but showing the ability to use the EU process as powerful leverage for improving democratic standards. Why do the CHP and the MHP raise objections to trying coup generals?

Brushing the occasional slowdown and unnecessary polemics aside, it is refreshing to see that the government is still maintaining a democratic stance. It is hard to guess what radical reforms can be expected from emotional reactions mostly shown on a discursive level. Yet, some significant developments hint that the government is on the right track. A bill that allows coup attempts to be tried in civilian courts is one of these developments.

An amendment to Article 250 of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK) and to several other articles has paved the way for litigation of offenses against democracy in civilian courts. What can be more natural and democratic than this amendment? What aspects of this amendment does the Republican People's Party (CHP) object to? In their objection, they cite the unconstitutionality of the amendment. In what country in the world can such legislation be considered unconstitutional? Suppose the CHP does not know what it is doing, what about the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP)? Do they not realize that this is serious? These two parties' attitudes, which can be regarded as attempts to block democratic progress, do not represent good marks for these parties' democratic report cards. Any sane person who reads the bylaws of the Military Supreme Court of Appeals can easily understands that the military judiciary is not authorized to try coups or coup attempts. Why should the CHP or the MHP feel uneasy about the government's move to try coup attempts in civilian courts? What about their recent so-called democratic moves? What is İlhan Selçuk trying to say?

The harshest reaction or insult to the bill in question came from İlhan Selçuk, the number one social engineer. Selçuk, who has been keeping silent for some time, represents an intellectual who has lost himself in the twilight zone between ideological fanaticism and democratic realities. What is Selçuk trying to do? Will this country benefit much from a confrontation between the military and the government? The purpose to which this polarization policy serves is clear, isn't it? Can ideological blindness reinforce democratization of the individual, let alone democratization of the system? Coming to Selçuk's question, “What happens when the military is included within the scope of the Ergenekon investigation?” in a democratic republic, no race, class or group can be regarded as privileged by law, the military included. A double-headed judiciary does not serve democracy. It may even reinforce autocratic tendencies and encourage coup attempts.

The limits of democracy

Is it possible to guess to which extent actions by an administration that is not audited by legal norms will remain within the limits of democracy? Selçuk claims that all military officers are included within the scope of the Ergenekon investigation, which is not the case. On the contrary, this is a modern law that also aims to introduce rule of law norms to the military. Moreover, it is to the benefit of the military, as it makes it possible for military officers who are charged with possible accusations to be acquitted by the courts. Can the military demand immunity from law? In all liberal and democratic countries, the military is bound by the rule of law. Unable to restrain himself, Selçuk continued to put forth his unusual descriptions: “This cannot be termed becoming more civilian, but a deprivation of law.” Everyone who has some knowledge about legal terminology will agree that the bill in question aims to reinforce the law, contrary to what he argues. Obviously, this step has been recorded as one of the most fundamental pieces of legislation as part of the guide on how to protect democracy in the face of coup attempts. One can do nothing but nod in favor of the approval of this bill, which is compliant with universal norms. What era and whom does Selçuk address with his outdated ideas?

The latest amendment to the TCK shows that the government is on the right track, but the opposition is still unable to clearly understand the vital risks the country faces. We are lucky to have a government that still maintains its democratic stance and is still at the helm. We are concerned, for we still have a weak opposition that refuses to converge on democratic principles despite the existence of coup attempts. Today, the Turkish society has the democratic maturity to determine its future. No one should try to claim the contrary. Today, no one thinks about seizing the state apparatus except the former power elites who seek to maximize their interests through an authoritarian state organization. The important thing is not to seize the state, but to manage to introduce change and transformation at correct points because this is the way to overcome strict authoritarian structures.