Apart from its long-term harmful effects, there were immediate victims of it: Around 650,000 people were detained and almost all of them tortured, while 65,000 were convicted. Public prosecutors demanded capital punishment for 6,353 people, and over 500 of these people were convicted and 50 executed, including a child. Some 388,000 people were banned from going abroad, 15,000 were stripped of their citizenship and almost 30,000 people had to flee the country.Of course, the history of coups in Turkey did not start on Sept. 12; during the Ottoman Empire there were several. The republic unfortunately did not have a scarcity of them, either; we have witnessed several, like the one of May 27, 1960. In essence a coup is a coup, and to attempt one is as bad as to successfully orchestrate one.
But interestingly, when we confront the coups we hear an unwillingness from different parts of society, depending on which coup we are talking about, to confront it.
Some of the Ergenekon defenders, for example, are willing to support the idea of filing charges against the perpetrators of the Sept. 12 coup. Some who would be delighted to confront the Feb. 28, 1997 memorandum are thinking twice when it comes to Sept. 12, 1980.
There might be some conjectural reasons behind these different attitudes, but I am afraid some people in this country have a tendency to defend democracy only for themselves. Just this example proves the harms of coups: Democracy was not able to flourish as a culture. As long as the various segments of society are unable to meet on the platform of democracy, the threat of all kinds of coups, e-memorandum style, post-modern, semi-civilian or in the form of psychological operation will be there.
Meanwhile, some segments of society and some individuals who defend the coups or try to find excuses for the coups or are unwilling to confront them remind me of people with Stockholm syndrome.
This syndrome is related to the psychological situation of hostages: this can be seen not only in victims of criminal cases, but also in abusive and controlling relationships and applied to victims who form emotional bonds with their abusers.
The experts dealing with Stockholm syndrome indicate that in abusive or controlling relationships several situations are possible. For example, there might be the presence of a perceived threat to one's physical or psychological survival and the belief that the abuser would carry out the threat. (“If I refuse to love coup perpetrators, they might kill me; they might make me disappear, they might take my privileges away from me, but on the other hand it is difficult to defend democracy, so let's surrender.”) The presence of a perceived small kindness from the abuser to the victim (“they invited me to their press conference and they gave me a promotion”); isolation from perspectives other than those of the abuser, in other words being fearful of saying or doing anything that might prompt a violent outburst from the abuser (“I should not question what they are saying; otherwise, they can harm me”); the perceived inability to escape the situation (“anyways, democracy here is not strong, so if there is a plan for a coup, it will be inevitable anyway”).
Well, as you know, the other name of Stockholm syndrome is “being in love with the executioner,” and once people have it, they are unable to prevent themselves from defending their abusers, even the abuser brought to trial or caught red-handed.
Experts also say that the most effective way to get rid of this syndrome is to confront the abuser and the relationship.
There are many people in this country praying for long life for Kenan Evren, the main perpetrator of the Sept. 12 coup, and these wishes might not be out of any great love for him.
Benzer Haberler 
