The TSK in politics and democracy under the sledgehammer
by
Özer Sencar & Ünal Bilir*

During the short period in which the TSK, which has always been a politically overbearing actor in the history of the republic, was subject to the supervision of the civilian judiciary, it was questioned a great deal and became very defensive. Even though the court’s decision will allow the TSK to return to its former procedures, there is no doubt that the allegations that have reached the public and the civilian judiciary will have a “let the genie out of the bottle” effect in the following period.

While the Constitutional Court’s annulment decision points to a period in which the TSK will be tested in terms of law and democracy, the decisions that military courts will reach on investigations and cases that were being handled in civilian courts after they are transferred to military courts will give a clear message on whether there is judicial integrity in Turkey. Likewise, the people will develop an understanding of why the TSK has avoided transparency and civilian judicial auditing until now.

The TSK, which is being criticized by at least one segment of intellectuals for becoming the focus of a series of activities that are incompatible with the laws and practices of a democratic and legal state, is losing its qualities of being privileged and distinguished and the most trusted state institution in the eyes of the public. The most recent survey by the MetroPOLL Strategic and Social Research Center on the TSK, which was conducted before the “sledgehammer” coup plan was even made public, showed that there was an increasing erosion of confidence in the TSK in society.  While the rate of those who believed there was a group within the military that wanted to stage a coup was 48.3 percent in July 2009, the figure increased to 55.1 percent in a survey conducted six months later. (For the full report, navigate to: http://www.metropoll.com.tr/report/test-of-the-turkish-military-with-democracy-and-law-en)

The publication of the “sledgehammer” coup plan has virtually verified the public’s concern. Certainly, if a survey about the TSK was to be held after the coup plan was made public, the results would be very different and would be against the TSK. But if there is any definite point that the current findings reveal then it is that the military does not have a democratic image in the eyes of the public. It is a fact that allegations and criticisms against the TSK in 2009 affected the public’s point of view; however, this is not the only factor that eroded public trust in the TSK.

The main factor that impaired relations with the public was the wrong security strategy and mission that the TSK developed with its perception of enemies. While the ally-enemy correlation is being rebuilt alongside major changes on the global scale in the new century, the Turkish military is portraying itself as a country that has failed to make peace with “internal enemies,” even though it has made peace with foreign enemies. Moreover, it is reflecting a security power image to the world that produces new internal enemies. The main reason that makes this strategy and mission which the TSK adamantly defends problematic is the strategy itself. According to the internal security strategy that the TSK developed during the Feb. 28 process and continues to practice today, political Islam and religious communities are one of the main internal threats.

Actually, this strategy, which is more along the lines of a Turkish copy of the action plan the Pentagon and the US Department of State prepared to counter the rising global influence of political Islam and to reshape the Middle East instead of being a strategy created by the TSK, is not only based on an incorrect enemy perception but it is also a pointless effort that has done nothing but waste the TSK’s time. The TSK, which in line with this strategy has closed its doors to soldiers’ mothers who wear headscarves, has expelled hundreds of young and talented military officers for allegedly engaging in reactionary activities, has taken a stance against government activities in the same manner as an opposition party instead of being apolitical and has undersigned an announcement that seems more like a threat than a defense, has failed to achieve the success it desires and now faces the risk of losing support from conservatives at an increasing rate.

Following the Constitutional Court’s annulment decision, the General Staff released a statement about the “sledgehammer” coup plans printed in the dailies. The General Staff disclosed that the most disturbing development for them as an institution was the search conducted in the “cosmic” rooms. But the moderate attitude TSK commanders displayed while a civilian judge searched the “cosmic” rooms was regarded as a positive development by the people. This situation is clearly reflected in the study. The rate of those who felt the search at the Ankara Mobilization Regional Directorate, also known as the Special Warfare Unit, was legal (50.1 percent) was higher than those who disapproved of it (39.8 percent). Studies show that while developments and debates related to the military in 2009 -- when Başbuğ made some very harsh statements -- caused a 30 percent decrease in trust towards the TSK and the chief of General Staff, this had a positive effect for 10 percent of the population. Başbuğ’s avoidance of making harsh statements while a civilian judge searched the “cosmic” rooms and his emphasis on “commitment to and confidence in the law,” had a positive effect on people’s outlook toward the TSK. Studies show that public trust in the TSK drops when Başbuğ gathers command forces and makes harsh statements and increases when he makes statements that focus on trust.

It is inevitable that the document titled “sledgehammer” will have a negative effect on the perception people have of the military. The military will continue to be remembered as something that threatens, not protects, Turkey’s democratic system as long as it continues to maintain a powerful autonomous position against civilian powers, especially the executive and the judiciary, and continues its negative attitude toward accountability and transparency. As in other democratic countries, the military needs to be the enforcer and supporter of national independence and democracy that guarantees freedom, not the force that resists change. The condition needed to fulfill this mission is to be a transparent and trusted power that can be accountable to civilian powers and posts, not a force that uses its immunity as a shield against civilian powers and attempts to shape democracy with sledgehammer coups.