fatman17
PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 32,563
- Reaction score
- 98
- Country
- Location
VIEW: Generals in retreat Usman Mujib Shami
The whole episode has left many people wondering what forced the military men to exit peacefully rather than to confront the political government.
Turkeys elected governments of the past constantly failed to block the army from prowling the power corridors. The countrys political history is rife with incidents of repeated intervention by the men in uniform. AK Partys incumbent government is, however, carved out of a different matter. It is in power since 2002 and has startled its friends and foes alike by winning the recent elections, again, by a thumping majority. Riding on the back of sustained economic growth and supported by a burgeoning middle class, it is exuding confidence. The events of last Friday shifted the balance, in the ongoing tug of war with the army, further in its favour. The ambitions of the army to continue with their active role in politics were dealt a major, some say decisive, blow when the countrys top commanders, including the chief of general staff, opted to bow out of the arena.
Usually, one would expect the generals of an army that has staged four coupes in the past (the last one being in 1997), to express their displeasure with the elected government by turning over the tables. It came as a pleasant surprise to most of the Turks, and to the proponents of democracy the world over, that this time around they decided to render their resignations. A major chunk of Turkeys army belongs to the school of thought that considers itself to be the protector of ideological boundaries (along with the geographical ones) of the state; the thinking that, in the past, propelled the army to repeatedly send elected governments packing.
The government led by the conservative AK Party has also had its share of disputes with the countrys armed forces. Back in 2007, the armys top cadre vehemently opposed Abdullah Guls selection as the ruling partys presidential candidate. His wifes attire (specifically the headscarf) was viewed by the military elite to be in conflict with the secularist spirit of the constitution. The relations between the secular army and the Islamist government (as they are widely recognised) remained tense, and the latter resorted to referendum (in 2010) to make amendments in the constitution aimed at limiting the armed forces role. The current constitution, promulgated by the military regime of 1980, was amended so the members of the armed forces conspiring against the political governments may be tried at civilian courts. Currently, 232 retired and serving officers are undergoing trial at the courts with criminal allegations ranging from planning to shoot down a Turkish fighter jet for embarrassing the government to provoking sectarian violence among different ethnic groups. The temperatures boiled up ahead of the meeting of Turkeys military supreme council, as top military men expressed the desire to promote some of the suspected officers. Prime Minister Erdogan flatly ruled out the possibility.
The indictment of 22 more army men (including six serving generals/admirals) by a court on Friday morning for sponsoring an anti-government internet propaganda campaign aggravated the uneasiness of certain quarters of the armed forces. The chief of general staff acknowledged this in his farewell speech as he stressed he was resigning because he was no longer able to carry out his duty to protect the rights of the members of the armed forces. General Kosaner also accused the government of pre-emptively fabricating the cases against the officers in order to thwart their progress in the military hierarchy. Many thought that by retreating, the Generals have actually played their trump card. Analysts suspect that apart from pressurising the courts, the resignations may have aimed at creating a power vacuum and pushing the country into chaos, thus paving the way for another military intervention. The political government, however, showed maturity in the wake of the crisis, and General Necdet Ozel, the commander of the Military Police, was elevated to the designation of army chief, and acting chief of general staff. The decision was readily accepted by the masses as well as by the army (apparently).
The whole episode has left many people wondering what forced the military men to exit peacefully rather than to confront the political government. First, Turkeys armed forces clearly lack the strength and popular support required to stage a coup against a political government that has won almost 50 percent of the total votes in the general elections held just a couple of months back. Second, any military intervention is likely to harm the countrys long cherished dream for European Union (EU) membership, which though already seems more of an illusion. Third, and most importantly, during the last decade, the performance of the political government has surpassed all expectations, especially on the economic front. The GDP more than tripled to $ 736 billion in 2010, up from $ 231 billion in 2002, a progress that has transformed Turkey from being the sick man of Europe to be the 16th largest economy in the world and the 6th largest compared with other EU countries. Currently, the economy boasts an impressive growth rate hovering around eight percent (at a time when most of the developed nations of the world are still feeling the heat of the global financial meltdown).
Erdogans government has skillfully curbed the armed forces ambitions of influencing the course of politics. Turkeys success carries a very important lesson for the ailing democracies of the world (including our own country); the democratic system can flourish only if it brings prosperity to the people. Legitimacy is born out of performance.
The writer is deputy editor of an Urdu national daily. He can be reached at usmanshami@yahoo.com
The whole episode has left many people wondering what forced the military men to exit peacefully rather than to confront the political government.
Turkeys elected governments of the past constantly failed to block the army from prowling the power corridors. The countrys political history is rife with incidents of repeated intervention by the men in uniform. AK Partys incumbent government is, however, carved out of a different matter. It is in power since 2002 and has startled its friends and foes alike by winning the recent elections, again, by a thumping majority. Riding on the back of sustained economic growth and supported by a burgeoning middle class, it is exuding confidence. The events of last Friday shifted the balance, in the ongoing tug of war with the army, further in its favour. The ambitions of the army to continue with their active role in politics were dealt a major, some say decisive, blow when the countrys top commanders, including the chief of general staff, opted to bow out of the arena.
Usually, one would expect the generals of an army that has staged four coupes in the past (the last one being in 1997), to express their displeasure with the elected government by turning over the tables. It came as a pleasant surprise to most of the Turks, and to the proponents of democracy the world over, that this time around they decided to render their resignations. A major chunk of Turkeys army belongs to the school of thought that considers itself to be the protector of ideological boundaries (along with the geographical ones) of the state; the thinking that, in the past, propelled the army to repeatedly send elected governments packing.
The government led by the conservative AK Party has also had its share of disputes with the countrys armed forces. Back in 2007, the armys top cadre vehemently opposed Abdullah Guls selection as the ruling partys presidential candidate. His wifes attire (specifically the headscarf) was viewed by the military elite to be in conflict with the secularist spirit of the constitution. The relations between the secular army and the Islamist government (as they are widely recognised) remained tense, and the latter resorted to referendum (in 2010) to make amendments in the constitution aimed at limiting the armed forces role. The current constitution, promulgated by the military regime of 1980, was amended so the members of the armed forces conspiring against the political governments may be tried at civilian courts. Currently, 232 retired and serving officers are undergoing trial at the courts with criminal allegations ranging from planning to shoot down a Turkish fighter jet for embarrassing the government to provoking sectarian violence among different ethnic groups. The temperatures boiled up ahead of the meeting of Turkeys military supreme council, as top military men expressed the desire to promote some of the suspected officers. Prime Minister Erdogan flatly ruled out the possibility.
The indictment of 22 more army men (including six serving generals/admirals) by a court on Friday morning for sponsoring an anti-government internet propaganda campaign aggravated the uneasiness of certain quarters of the armed forces. The chief of general staff acknowledged this in his farewell speech as he stressed he was resigning because he was no longer able to carry out his duty to protect the rights of the members of the armed forces. General Kosaner also accused the government of pre-emptively fabricating the cases against the officers in order to thwart their progress in the military hierarchy. Many thought that by retreating, the Generals have actually played their trump card. Analysts suspect that apart from pressurising the courts, the resignations may have aimed at creating a power vacuum and pushing the country into chaos, thus paving the way for another military intervention. The political government, however, showed maturity in the wake of the crisis, and General Necdet Ozel, the commander of the Military Police, was elevated to the designation of army chief, and acting chief of general staff. The decision was readily accepted by the masses as well as by the army (apparently).
The whole episode has left many people wondering what forced the military men to exit peacefully rather than to confront the political government. First, Turkeys armed forces clearly lack the strength and popular support required to stage a coup against a political government that has won almost 50 percent of the total votes in the general elections held just a couple of months back. Second, any military intervention is likely to harm the countrys long cherished dream for European Union (EU) membership, which though already seems more of an illusion. Third, and most importantly, during the last decade, the performance of the political government has surpassed all expectations, especially on the economic front. The GDP more than tripled to $ 736 billion in 2010, up from $ 231 billion in 2002, a progress that has transformed Turkey from being the sick man of Europe to be the 16th largest economy in the world and the 6th largest compared with other EU countries. Currently, the economy boasts an impressive growth rate hovering around eight percent (at a time when most of the developed nations of the world are still feeling the heat of the global financial meltdown).
Erdogans government has skillfully curbed the armed forces ambitions of influencing the course of politics. Turkeys success carries a very important lesson for the ailing democracies of the world (including our own country); the democratic system can flourish only if it brings prosperity to the people. Legitimacy is born out of performance.
The writer is deputy editor of an Urdu national daily. He can be reached at usmanshami@yahoo.com
