Can the Turkish military be democratic? This is a crucial question for Turkish democracy and by extension for a number of chronic problems which have plagued Turkish society for decades
This debate has been triggered again by the recent statements of Hilmi Özkök, the former chief of general staff of the Turkish Armed Forces (TSK), on what the Turkish military thinks about democracy, globalization and pluralism. Since the role of the Turkish military in Turkish politics goes back to the foundation of the republic, the history of modern Turkish democracy is also a history of the ways in which the Turkish military establishment has tried to shape and control the Turkish political system. In its dealings with a secular democracy, the military establishment has always faced a dilemma: while proclaiming itself to be an actor of Turkish modernization, it has delayed or simply prevented the development of a fully functioning democracy and a free civil society in the country. The founders of the republic included soldiers, among them Atatürk himself, who led the Turkish War of Independence after World War I. The feeling that Turkish independence was won the hard way and has to be protected at all costs underlies the existential concerns of the security establishment in Turkey.
As a result, the Turkish military, with many links in Turkish politics, has always approached civilian politics warily on the grounds that civilians are corrupt and cannot be trusted when it comes to protecting the vital interests of the republic. The perception of this threat was used to justify the three military coups of 1960, 1971 and 1980, and other soft and indirect interventions including the Feb. 28 process and the e-memorandum of April 27, 2007. The recent Ergenekon case shows that the spirit of military coup in the name of protecting the country is still alive. Özkök thinks the Turkish army is changing fast. According to a recent interview with Milliyet columnist Fikret Bila, Özkök says the new Turkish generals have a very different notion of democracy. He believes the period of military coups is over in Turkey. The new generation of Turkish generals knows their limits, and they have no illusions about becoming closet politicians in army suits. He mentions five main reasons for this. One may disagree with this assessment, but coming from a top general, it deserves a hearing. According to Özkök, the first reason for the major transformation of the Turkish military is the new level of intellectual sophistication with which it regards such notions as democracy, transparency, accountability and the rule of law. The new generation appreciates these concepts in a genuine way. This is a result of the good education the army officers are getting, and this new education exposes them to new ideas. The second reason is related to this, and it is what some call "NATOism." While the term has negative connotations, Özkök notes the positive impact working in NATO missions has on Turkish military personnel. Participating in NATO missions around the world exposes military officers to new realities and broadens their horizon. The third reason is the level of social and economic development of Turkish society as a whole. As a result, the idea of a society ruled by an army is seen as contrary to that of a prosperous and democratic republic. The fourth reason is the fact of globalization. Özkök notes that modern communication technologies have changed the way powerful institutions, including the military, run their business. Exposure to public scrutiny leads to a higher sense of accountability. And the fifth reason is the lessons learnt from the past experiences of military coups and suspended democracies. He believes none of these have made Turkey safer or stronger. These remarks sound as though they are coming from a liberal scholar of political science rather than a top army general. But there they are, running contrary to our usual story of the Turkish army but perhaps
