PROFESSOR KARAOSMANOGLU: TIME FOR MILITARY TO RESPECT DEMOCRACY
Today’s Zaman
8-8-professor-karaosmanoglu-time-for-military-to-r espect-democracy.html
Nov 2 2009
Turkey
Ali Karaosmanoglu, an academic with expertise in civilian-military
relations, has said the military’s "hands-off" position on politics
has become more visible since the second half of 2007 but that it
should do more.
"The military should accept that the last word is with the civilian
authority, and the military should believe in democracy," he told
Today’s Zaman for Monday Talk as the discovery of a military plan,
the "Action Plan to Fight Reactionaryism" to discredit the government
has revealed once again the deep divisions that exist within the
state, mainly between the military-led bureaucrats and the political
authorities.
There are signs of much improvement in civilian-military relations,
on the other hand, Karaosmanoglu said; for example, despite the
military’s April 27, 2007, "electronic ultimatum" to the government,
the ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party) was re-elected in
the July elections of that same year, increasing its vote to about 46
percent from 34.29 percent in the November 2002 elections. And since
then, civilian-military relations have begun to take a new turn as
the military’s role in politics has become less visible.
However, the Turkish Council of Forensic Medicine (ATK) recently
confirmed the authenticity of an action plan signed by a colonel which
allegedly intended to unseat the ruling party. The plan is currently
the subject of judicial process.
Karaosmanoglu, whose article "Turkish Security Culture: Evolutionary
or Carved in Stone" appeared in a book published last week by the
Netherlands-based Centre for European Security Studies (CESS), holds
the view that the ups and downs in the process of consolidating
democracy in Turkey should not prevent us from seeing the "whole
picture."
You hold the view that the Turkish Armed Forces [TSK] does not involve
itself in politics as much as it used to do. How have you reached
this conclusion?
First of all, this is a requirement for consolidating democracy
in Turkey. One sign in that regard can be seen in the reforms in
2002-2005 [in order to fulfill the European Union’s Copenhagen
criteria]. Those reforms considerably decreased the military’s
influence in politics. The military did not oppose these developments;
indeed, it was willing for these reforms to be implemented.
Why?
Because the military saw that democratization would be good for the
country, and they concluded that the state would be empowered if it
adapted itself to changing conditions.
What kind of conditions?
Take the Annan plan. Most of the members of the military were opposed
to the Annan plan, but despite of their opposition, they cooperated
with the civilian government. This example shows that the military is
trying to ease the state’s adaptation to the changing international
environment. And there have been ups and downs in the process.
Would you elaborate on this?
For example, the military issued an "electronic memorandum" [or
e-ultimatum on April 27, 2007] to express its reservations during
the presidential election. This showed that the military did not
favor a takeover of the government by a military coup d’état. The
ruling AK Party government reacted harshly to the "memorandum." Plus,
the military’s interference proved ineffective, as demonstrated by
the landslide electoral victory of the AK Party. Then the Dolmabahce
meeting between the Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and former
Chief of General Staff Gen. YaÅ~_ar Buyukanıt took place. Following
that meeting, we started to see increasing cooperation between the
military and government. And the cooperation continued in various
areas.
Civilian-military relations take a new turn Could you talk more about
these areas? In what areas have you noticed cooperation between the
government and the military?
We can see that in the improvement of relations with Armenia, and
more importantly we can see that in the Kurdish issue and the fight
against the PKK [the outlawed Kurdistan Workers’ Party]. One reason
for this cooperation between the military and government has been that
the fight against terrorism has become an international issue. And
the Kurdish issue has taken on international importance as well.
How?
Following the occupation of Iraq, an autonomous Kurdish region
gained strength there. In addition, the PKK has been involved
in the drug trade. Moreover, it has been revealed that the PKK’s
financial resources came partly from international sources. Plus,
conducting cross-border operations in 2007-2008 required diplomatic
preparations and initiatives. Therefore, the national aspects of
the issues started to interact with the international aspects, and
interestingly the international aspects have come to the fore. When
international aspects become prominent, the political aspects of the
issues become prominent as well, increasing the need for the civilian
government’s prominence. It has been obligatory to give priority to
the civilian government in that regard. This has been an important
development in civilian-military relations. And Turkey has taken
a step forward in that regard, independent of the reform process
required for membership in the European Union.
If international aspects had not required such a development, would
you say that improvements in civilian-military relations could not
have happened?
They still could have occurred; that was one factor. There were other
international factors, too. With globalization, democratization,
respect for human rights and the supremacy of law have gained more
importance. Parallel to these developments, the norms of legitimacy
have changed, both internationally and domestically. Changing norms
of legitimacy required the state to adapt to this change. This was
seen both by the government and military. Then arose the need for the
renewal of the state, be it by adapting to new norms, establishing
new relations or forming new institutions.
‘Kurdish opening likely to continue’ Where do you think the Kurdish
opening is going?
There are ups and downs. The arrival of the members of the PKK led to
anger in the society in general. In addition to this, the government
has perceived the manner in which the DTP [Democratic Society Party]
received the PKK members, holding joyous celebrations, as a political
move. The government has halted the process of receiving more members
of the PKK, but this halt is most probably only temporary and the
process is likely to continue.
How long do you think it will take until society sees another group
of PKK members coming back to Turkey?
It might take a long time until that happens again. But the important
thing is that the process will continue.
Why do you see this process in a way that there will be no turning
back?
It is because there is a process of cultural change occurring in
Turkey. This change is about political culture, which has already
gone a long way in the process of change. It is no longer stoppable. A
change in political culture has become obligatory. The renewal of the
state as necessary has been seen in the history of state tradition in
Turkey. In the Ottoman Empire the state renewed itself and adapted
to changes, and the elites cooperated in the process. [Scholars]
Å~^erif Mardin and Kemal Karpat explain this issue in detail. We
are going through the same thing today in the republic: The state
has to adapt itself to the changing conditions in order to sustain
itself. This is a part of our political culture. That’s why it is an
unstoppable process. And it will go on until democracy is consolidated.
‘EU can accelerate change in Turkey’ Is it realistic to think about
a time period for that?
The process can only be expedited. The European Union is important
in that regard because the EU can have a role in facilitating the
reform process in Turkey, as we have seen before. This was the case in
2002-2005. This process is also useful because it creates interaction
between Turkey and the EU; Turkey learns more about Europe and Europe
learns more about Turkey and some prejudices are eliminated in the
process as some channels for dialogue are opened. Those channels of
dialogue make it easier to offer new ideas. [In a meeting with experts
from Europe on the issue of civilian-military relations in Europe and
Turkey] we saw that there are differing practices and rules in each
country of Europe. So what is the goal of the European Union criteria?
What is it?
Its goal is to establish a framework which is democratic, but the
inside of this framework is blank and it presents many opportunities.
If a country, for example Turkey, uses this opportunity, it can produce
a civilian-military relations model which can be quite democratic. The
important thing is to make good use of this opportunity.
What is the essence of the matter in reconsidering civilian-military
relations?
It is important to understand that the military is an important
institution. Its duty is to protect the nation, and that’s why it has
weapons. But the military should not try to create political influence
by depending on the power that comes from having weapons. Moreover,
the military should be subordinate to the civilian authority. In
addition, the civilian authority should be involved in dialogue
with the military and should take military expertise seriously. The
civilian government should consult with the military in matters of
security and defense, but at the same time it should have the power
to control all military spending. In addition to this, the military
should accept that the last word rests with the civilian authority,
and the military should believe in democracy. This is the essence of
the matter. These are the European criteria. This is the framework
which can involve different models. Although the military commanders
continue to make declarations on public and political matters, Turkey
is moving toward a regime with more political initiative and less
direct military influence over politics.
What do you think the role of the opposition is in the process?
A consensus among the political parties on establishing a more
democratic balance between secularism and Islam and between the
Kurdish question and the unitary state would certainly increase the
possibility of more democratic control over the military and its
complete subordination to civilian authority.