Military parades on national holidays indicate weak democracy

Tanks rolled through stadiums in big cities and on İstanbul's Vatan Street as part of the huge military processions -- made up of thousands of infantry -- to mark Victory Day. Although civilian participation rates are usually very high at these events -- as the public enjoys watching the military parade -- the sight of tanks, military heavy armor and even planes being put on display is of an undeniably Soviet character. Russia still holds spectacular military parades on May 9, that country's V-Day, across dozens of its cities. Military parades are usually associated with dictatorial regimes.

The only country in Europe that holds military parades is France. Other countries that rely on a significant military presence to mark their national holidays include China and North Korea. For many active in the human rights field, the military parades are only a demonstration of the military’s power.

This mentality is also apparent in a slogan the military started using around one year ago. It used the phrase “Powerful Military, Powerful Turkey,” on a poster prepared for the anniversary of the establishment of the Land Forces Command. The first slogan was criticized by writers, intellectuals and others, including Culture Minister Ertuğrul Günay, who said a strong military would not make a great country, but instead the country has to be powerful first for the military to be powerful. In the face of criticism, General Staff did not feel the order of the two phrases was important, but in late June this year the military changed this slogan to “Powerful Turkey, Powerful Military” on its website. Human Rights Association (İHD) head Öztürk Türkdoğan also believes that the parades are being held by the military to demonstrate its power. Türkdoğan says: “The era of armies marching down the street in a show of force has ended. Armies making demonstrations of power on the street gives clues about the character of the regime in a given country. Turkey has problems regarding democracy and human rights. It cannot even rid itself of the Sept. 12 Constitution. The transition to democracy from a militaristic Constitution and state tradition can never be accomplished. But we should not see these merely as outdated ceremonies. Aug. 30 and similar ceremonies are the show of power of militarism itself. Turkey should lose these scenes of shame.” Türkdoğan said that a country’s greatness is not measured by the size or reputation of its army, or how many troops, tanks or missiles it has. “Today, the greatness and level of development of a country are measured by the level of democracy, human rights and the economy.”

He also said that Aug. 30 is a national day for the entire country, not only the military. “This is why such days should be celebrated with the participation of all the people in a festive air. These scenes also lag behind society’s development level. We should get rid of militaristic policies and civilianize.”

Prussian army model

Journalist Mehmet Altan says that the military parades on Aug. 30 and other national days are proof that Turkey’s regime follows a Prussian model. Altan said: “Since the regime in this country was set up by the military and since the duty of protecting and guarding it is also assumed by the military, we are always faced with scenes that are reminiscent of the Prussian army model. There is a constant glorification of the military and military service. The ‘we are a soldier nation,’ or ‘every Turk is born a soldier’ discourse is being disseminated to propagate the military.”

He said the way Aug. 30 is celebrated in Turkey has not changed a bit from the way it was celebrated in the 1930s. “Even the parade formation has remained the same. The military cannot change it even if it wants to. Politics, as an institution, does not want a change in the military. Political parties are not making an effort to change this regime. All parties are serving militarism. The regime is not democratic, but there are no efforts to transform it into a democracy, because the military-politics relationship has turned into a field for profit. The General Staff cannot be brought under supervision of the National Defense Ministry. Those who actually propose this are only doing so in return for political gains.”