A ‘professional army’; great, but how?
by
EROL GÖKA*

 If we were to list these points of consensus in order, we’d have to first begin with the consensus on the point that democratic improvement in Turkey has had implications on the relationship between the military and politics as well as the point that the military tutelage which has existed throughout the history of the republic has started to disappear.

Unproductive debates

There are several views that can be expressed as to why a tutelary mentality has prevailed over the military-political relationship throughout history, and discussions about the “military-civilian intellectual class” or the “bureaucratic oligarchy” can continue endlessly. I am seriously tired of these unproductive debates. As a scholar that has been concentrating on the historical psychology of Turks for many years, I’ve seen that military tutelage does not stem directly from the military itself. It is our historical conditions and social subconscious that has brought on tutelage. Indeed, taking a look at the portraits of the Sept. 12, 1980 generals is enough to know that the top commanders have a “we are competent subjects who know everything” attitude. In my opinion, the army itself is not the cause of this extremely disturbing Sept. 12 general attitude. If there was a civilian will that showed the generals that they, in fact, did not know much about anything else except military matters and did not call on them whenever things got tough, then the generals would not have such wise-guy poses. It is for this reason that I request that people stop the debates on bureaucratic oligarchy and urgently put forward solutions. If the civilian will were to have the level of determination that would make military tutelage unnecessary and the capability to organize, I don’t think the military and the commanding staff would be upset and show resistance because their tutelary responsibilities had been taken away. To the contrary, I think they would be relieved because they would have the opportunity to attend to real military issues and not be expected to carry out tutelage responsibilities. If there are some people who start the professional army debate believing it will lead to a reduction in the size of the army, a division of armaments among the police and other focal points and thereby create an appropriate environment to abolish military tutelage, then I think they should expend their energy on more beneficial matters. The existence of a military tutelage system has more to do with the weakness of the civilian will than the presence of a strong military; in other words, the problem is much deeper. Tutelage will remain an issue as long as we lack the courage and knowledge to look at the issues that lie deep down. The only thing that will change is the agenda. One day we will have those who called on the military to do their duty on the agenda and then the next day we will have those who blame the military for all kinds of mistakes.

Organized professional units

Another one of the other agreed upon points in the professional army debate is the need to counter terror attacks and crime not with a coordinated armed force that comprises soldiers whose military service will end after a certain period and are inculcated with a particular understanding of defense but with specially organized professional units that are focused on the goal of fighting terror. This thesis, which has been verified by the experience of the past 30 years, is so correct and legitimate that it has become a view shared by everyone in this country. It is for this reason that this plan needs to be implemented urgently. These measures need to be taken to ensure that this nation and the mothers and fathers who send their children to the military to defend their country against enemy attacks do not receive any more news of their children dying in vile terror attacks.

In the professional army debates, there is also consensus on the need to fight terror with advanced technology and the proper weapons. Taking the necessary legal and technical precautionary measures to ensure that when terrorists attack using children and civil disobedience as a shield the outcome is not in favor of terror but in favor of society should be assessed within this context as well. Nonetheless, there is also agreement on the need to fight terror using a tone that it will understand and with a mentality that looks out for society’s interests. It has become obvious that those who participate in the professional army debates in the hope that it will facilitate making weapons, methods and techniques more professional are absolutely right.

These three points are the points on which there is consensus. Then there is another side to the debate which is still going on fiercely. Not only is there no consensus in this part of the debate, but the sides don’t even understand each other. This point has to do with a radical thesis that foresees eliminating the current army structure and the system of forced military service and replacing it with a much smaller and brand new professional military organization. This thesis implies so much all at once and sparks so much reaction that it has caused a delay in implementing the points in the debate over which the sides agree.

Radical theses on building a professional army have an effect that is completely opposite to its purpose and tend to inhibit reforms in the military. Anytime anyone mentions a professional army they are perceived as talking about a radical thesis or supporting a radical thesis even if they are actually putting forward reasonable views. For example, even though I support the vision of a professional army with respect to the aforementioned points of consensus, I never support theses that foresee eliminating the current military structure, abolishing mandatory military service and downsizing the army. Before I share my views with you, I would like to note that debates on the professional army, including the points that I will make, need to continue. However, debates should not cast a shadow over the points that have been agreed upon. Now let me turn to my views about the military:

In order to have a place in the democratic world, Turkey needs to abide by basic human rights and freedoms indisputably at least as much as the democratic world. This is how we must view rights and freedoms if we see ourselves as a partner of the democratic world. Besides, our people are no less than the people in the democratic world. Basic human rights and freedoms are rights and freedoms that people have simply because they are human beings.

It is for this reason that the entire state system and military understanding needs to be reviewed and completely restructured from the perspective of basic human rights and freedoms. For example, from this perspective, conscientious objection is at very the least an acceptable request in contemporary democracies. We as well will eventually have to accept that no one can be forced to serve in the military. Since the republic cannot plug its ears to these kinds of demands, the legal system needs to be designed to prevent people from being forced into the army against their consent. After all, it is the state’s right to invite its citizens to serve in a military that is based on the principle of voluntary service and within the framework of complete equality and justice. It is also the state’s right to provide training for this type of service. Of course, there are several ways to fulfill the obligation of military service. Fulfilling this obligation is not limited to just field service or joining combatant forces. The state is responsible for finding ways for people to fulfill their obligation by taking into account their demands but it also has the authority to invite willing citizens to join this service. Similarly, since this obligation to do military service is a public service, those who assume this duty should be rewarded for their service depending on the difficulty of their task. There should be a difference between those who use their right to conscientious objection and those who risk their life for the public interest in terms of benefiting from public services and fulfilling other public obligations.

I argue for making military service voluntary instead of mandatory and diversifying military service but I still want the state to essentially continue to invite all male citizens to serve in the army for a certain period of time. I am very suspicious about the idea of building -- in the name of a professional army -- a small but very competent military that is a profession for just a certain portion of citizens. The risk is not just the fascistic results that could come about from this type of professional armed body in our belligerent social psychology. The main risk is that removing military service as a public obligation could mean eliminating the unifying factor in our social structure that stems from the collective experience and ideals of the people. In Turkey, aside from and perhaps even more than its defense functions, the army is the main actor of “socialization,” “nationalization” and “modernization.” This does not have anything to do with us being a society that consists of different ethnic groups. The army actually ensures people of Turkish ethnicity unite and integrate with each other. After all, the Turkish ethnic identity has a fragmentary and segmental attribute. The only place it can unite under the umbrella of Turkish identity outside elementary school and a house of worship is the military. I will continue to elaborate on my opinions in the event that there is a debate.