The CHP is doing the most damage to the military because…
by
AHMET TURAN AYHAN*

Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's suggestion to leave the opposition alone and to “let them go” to the Constitutional Court for the annulment of the law was a very appropriate and constructive stance.

If I recall correctly, there is an English proverb that goes all's well that ends well. The action plan to discredit the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) and Fethullah Gülen, which was described as a very serious development, has become leverage for a democratic transition, and this is not only a joyful situation but also a historic turning point for Turkey. Turkey is improving its discretionary powers of all kinds to protect and defend democracy against coup attempts. Famous French political scientist Maurice Duverger once said Turkish democracy is under military tutelage, but the new law will discredit this thesis.

It must be admitted that this amendment, the effects of which we will recognize more easily in the medium and long term, is a profound amendment that will allow the military, which has evolved into a basic tool for power struggles in Turkey, to return to its real job and strengthen democracy.

It is every Turkish citizen's duty to congratulate the ruling AK Party for its success and courage in managing the process. At this point, I must say that it's also necessary to make a reference to the European Union's support for the law in question. Supportive statements from the EU not only sparked wide-scale public attention but also gave significant momentum to the government's determined stance.

It seems likely that the government will have a better understanding of the EU's strategic value in the near future, for without the EU's foreign support, radical changes would not be that easy to make.

The real situation, which has contracted into a power struggle between military and civilian courts, may appear to be a trivial debate, but examining the whole of the iceberg may offer a more valuable look at the truth.

To do this, it is necessary to go beyond the power debate that the veto lobby has blocked and to establish the truth with complete accuracy. That said, the issue of trying junta and coup leaders in civilian courts, which forms the basis for the debates, should first and foremost be considered a big step toward eliminating military tutelage.

Without doubt, military tutelage is the sword of Damocles hanging over democracy and is the biggest obstacle to Turkish modernization. It is very important to understand that the law isn't about creating an absolute judiciary.

It is the subject of military tutelage that needs to be made the focus of debates. If Turkey wants to resolve the variety of dilemmas it has, ranging from the Kurdish issue to the Alevi issue, from the minority issue to secularism and from universities to judicial reform, then it must eliminate military tutelage. The law, which grants authority to civilian courts to try military personnel involved in coup planning, is a very important starting point to this end.

Legislation that paves the way for a democratic republic

Military tutelage, which needs to be seen as the source of other problems, is a structural problem that has been consistently overlooked up until now. Waiting for a democratic republic to evolve without ending the tutelage regime is like waiting for Godot. It is the tutelage system that causes society to split into ideological groups, that sustains its existence and power by inciting hostility between different segments of society and that leads to the formation of an artificial society by resisting class domination.

Overthrowing this system will mean writing the history of liberation and becoming a civilian-oriented society. There is a misperception that Turkey is debating a technical problem that has been made into a judicial issue. However, the debate is between those who want to maintain military tutelage and those who oppose it in a 21st century Turkey. Those who oppose the law are those who benefit in some way from the presence of a tutelage regime. Is the opposition front aware that their opposition is creating the grounds for the tutelage regime to sustain its existence for a while longer? These so-called intellectuals who act as spokespersons for groups with which they have formed organic links are completely disloyal to the rise of a modern Turkey.

Should we just turn a blind eye to those who are disloyal to Turkish modernization, who confine betrayal to the ideological sphere and inhibit Turkey, which has become one of the leading countries in the region, from taking progressive steps? It is not surprising that these intellectuals who occasionally smirk at despicable class struggles insist on maintaining a dominating structure. Would the reaction toward the law in question be so shallow if faith in a democratic republic meant employing democracy in all institutions and laws?

Even intellectuals such as journalist Mehmet Ali Birand are not aware of the kind of frivolous situation they are in, commenting on details such as the timing and the way in which the law was approved. Is this a democratic stance?

It is clear that the vigilant forces are not the only ones that have lost their influence during this period. It is also becoming clearer that the struggle is between those who are part of a worn-out, cumbersome state apparatus and those who are ready to spark change on a universal level. Indeed legislation that leads to the birth of a modern Turkey means eliminating shallow and incompetent intellectuals.

Although the debate is over normalizing civilian-military relations, it ultimately concerns the rise of a modern Turkey. The history of philosophy shows that, just like civilizations, sometimes societies can take what appear to be small steps but have cataclysmic qualities and undergo revolutionary changes. If we can analyze the point we have reached in this struggle outside of this small debate vortex by emphasizing one of the fundamental themes that has served as the driving force for universal major civilizations, then we can reach more accurate conclusions.

CHP bangs on Constitutional Court's doors instead of serving as an alternative to the ruling power

It seems likely that the Republican People's Party's (CHP) rising voice in applying to the Constitutional Court for the annulment of the law will occupy the agenda for some time. CHP Deputy Chairman Onur Öymen said approving the law was wrong and argued that it violated Article 145 of the Constitution. For some reason, he refuses to concede that the law is an important step toward eliminating military tutelage. So does the CHP's stance signify that it wants to sustain military tutelage? Is this the main question that needs to be answered?

After making progress in democratic efforts, the CHP is back at square one, striking a serious blow to confidence in the party. What's more important is that the absence of a powerful opposition to balance the power of the strong AK Party government is one of the main factors that has worn the military down. There is no doubt that the anti-AK Party group was effective in putting pressure on the military to assume de facto responsibility to do what the CHP could not. If the CHP filled that void, it would have been an alternative to the ruling party by attracting the attention of AK Party opponents. This kind of situation would have kept the democratic culture alive and would have prevented the military from assuming its problematic savior mission.

Some may argue that the CHP has been a strong opposition party by opposing everything and not allowing the AK Party to even take a breath. But what I am trying to explain is much different. If the CHP had chosen to follow a more democratic and liberal policy, it would have prevented the military from becoming so entrenched in politics.

The CHP is very careful about not making any concession on its elitist approach by conducting politics over the traditional value system. Although occasional positive efforts such as the chador initiative have incited hope, a plethora of insincere efforts quickly made it a short-lived initiative. If the CHP cannot be an alternative to the ruling power, if it is not preparing any works to this end and if it perceives a tight blockade against democratic steps to be a policy, then I must say we are face-to-face with a very serious problem.

If the CHP really wants to help the military out, then it first needs to fulfill its duty as an opposition party and become an alternative to the ruling power. Otherwise, what the CHP is doing is just taking the easy route, or in other words, just shooting fish in a barrel.

The ruling power has paved the way for a modern Turkey by implementing a critical law that will remove the effects of military tutelage through constraining the authority of the military in pursuit of protecting and defending democracy.

In its modernization, Turkey will continue to make progress in structural reforms aimed at democratizing the republic. As the effects of military tutelage disappear, we will see that it is possible to build a more sound and democratic society.

Perhaps during this process, there will be benefit in developing a new view on the opposition issue, which is currently one of our main problems. The need for a leftist opposition that can successfully become an alternative to the ruling power is as critical as ending military tutelage. Turkey is aware of this, but what about the CHP? Mind you, we're talking about a CHP that is banging on the Constitutional Court's door to annul legislation that would put an end to military tutelage.