The other aspect of these plans was building public opinion against Fethullah Gülen, a moderate religious leader who has promoted inter-faith dialogue, inspired local investors to be international entrepreneurs and has become the driving force behind an educational network that promotes humanitarian ideals across ethnic and religious lines globally, labeling his supporters as a “terrorist organization.”Given the fact that there is a running case (Ergenekon) built against a group of military officers, civilian bureaucrats, academics and journalists, etc., who have conspired to bring the incumbent AK Party down on the grounds of anti-secular activities, the public was quite convinced that there would be no more putschist tendencies within the Turkish Armed Forces (TSK). In fact, Gen. İlker Başbuğ, the chief of general staff, had promised the nation that “the army would not allow putschists to survive within the armed forces,” during a much-publicized media briefing less than two months ago. But, alas, the plans, which are dated April 2009, were hatched in the very headquarters of the General Staff, by a branch (3rd Informational Support Section) of the Operations Division (the former Psychological Warfare Department.
Both the media and the public were shocked to learn that the Turkish military still expends some of its energy on such illegal plots. Two things developed simultaneously. The military prosecutor put a ban on making news on the issue. At the same time it started to investigate the nature of the matter. It is, however, unclear what is being investigated. Is it the leak and those who have leaked the news that are being sought? Or is it those who conspire against the lawful government by using unethical methods such as smearing a cleric who has never advocated violence and who has made a special effort to remain aloof of politics despite the rhetoric against him?
Now it is the expectation of the democrats and constitutionalists of this country to expect a serious investigation in order to bring those responsible to justice and to expel them from the military if they are convicted of unlawful activities. But, then, how would an institution, on record for executing a series of coups and issuing declarations threatening others, objectively conduct an investigation and punish those who are involved in plotting a new one while some of its ranks openly demonstrate their dislike for prosecuting their comrades in the Ergenekon case? Fortunately, the office of the General Staff has issued a declaration pledging that it will conduct a thorough investigation concerning the authenticity of the document. While the declaration showed the commitment of the military establishment to rid itself of the malpractice of some of its staff, it carried a counter-offensive against fraud that could be a smear initiative against the armed forces. In any case, both the military and representatives of political parties seemed to be determined in solving the problem within the law through the judiciary. This may be hailed as the maturation of Turkish politics and the growing respect for the rule of law.
Secondly, wide-based sensitivity evinced against putschist tendencies is indicative of popular rejection of bureaucratic and military tutelage over society. Similarly, plans made against the Gülen movement to present it to the Turkish public as a “terrorist” group exposes the fear of the bureaucracy of the growing power of the civil society and the loss of their leverage in politics.
What could be the outcome of the legal procedure to follow? If the document made public is authentic, the military has the responsibility to cleanse its house and soul of extra-legal, extra-political interventions into societal affairs. If it does this, its legitimacy and dependability will be established beyond doubt. But if there is a cover-up, as hinted by the military prosecutor's immediate ban on media coverage of the issue, the armed forces will lose more of its credibility, and the process of distancing the military from politics will be enhanced. This time the AK Party will find allies among other political parties.
In order to cleanse the soul of the military from tutelary tendencies, military education must be transformed from being the guardian of the regime to be the guardian of the country. Its bylaws must put emphasis on protection of the country from external threats, not putative internal threats born out of ideological biases. But more than anything else, the armed forces must not consider themselves to be the guardian and protector of an abstract republic, but the very people of the country who have been bereft of full democratic rights, legal equality, education for all and welfare well below the level of developed societies.
Benzer Haberler 
