TURKEY: THROES OF SECULARISM
25.07.2013
Sergei Sargsyan
Deputy head of the Center for Political Studies, “Noravank” Foundation
Since late May protests have been persisting in Turkey. They were
caused by the intentions of Istanbul authorities to cut down trees in
Gezi garden near Taksim Square for building new shopping and recreation
center and restoration of the Ottoman barracks which used to be there
once. While speaking about history, one should remember that at the
place of the square and garden, in 1551-1939, Surb Hakob Armenian
cemetery, which was of 850 thousand sq. meters in area, was situated.
Besides the fact that this project of shopping and recreation center
building had to be implemented in the economic interests of one of
business groups, which is close to the ruling Justice and Development
Party, as an additional argument the fact that in this garden young
people who demonstrated undue behavior – young men and women gathered
there, drank alcohol, kissed – was brought.
But it was the project of destruction of a small garden that was
fated to trigger public discontent by the processes proceeding in
the country, which are associated with the accession to power and
activity of the ruling party and personally with the prime-minister
Recep Tayip Erdogan.
Initially cutting down of the trees was opposed by “Taksim Solidarity”
platform which included NGOs of architects and ecologists, but very
soon they were joined by the representatives of the middle class
and students, nationalists and anarchists, communists, Muslims, some
trade unions, Turks, Kurds and Alawis, intelligentsia and football
fans and the protests acquired distinct political character.
According to the Ministry of Interior of Turkey about two million
people participated in the protests of the opposition. The protests
were organized in almost every city in Turkey1.
At the same time, both spontaneous and more organized actions by the
trade unions are not vividly and fully supported by the oppositional
parties because the protesters are just a part of their electorate
and not the most stable one. Open support may cause loss of some of
their permanent and less emotional electors whose stance is much more
important for the party leadership.
Protests showed that for the 11 years of the JDP rule the considerable
part of Turkish society has perfectly acknowledged the consequences
of alternations in the principles of the secular states, the policy
of checks and balances, based on the precepts and principles of Kemal
Ataturk, in which army of the Turkish Republic played one of key roles.
The JDP initiated the fundamental changes of this system from
seemingly insignificant steps under the precise of modernization and
Europeanization of the domestic and foreign policies of Turkey. Due
to this tactics, the militaries, who were justly considered to be the
guardians of Ataturk’s heritage and secular character of the country,
fell into “Euro-trap”. Being adherents of close integration of Turkey
and the West they were deprived of their decisive influence on policy
making as a result of the structural reforms in the vertical power
structure, which, by the way, were carried out by the EU’s demand. And
pro-Islamist powers achieved what they couldn’t achieve during the
straightforward “attack” of the Islamists under the N. Erbakan,
which resulted in a bloodless military coup in 1997.
At the same time the current pace of steady Islamization of the country
cause discontent of both adherents of Europeanization of Turkey and
those who support fast and radical Islamization of the society. And
history of Turkey proves that overlapping of economic problems and
discontent of the society by the political situation in the country
is always a presage of military coups.
And Today Turkey is also affected by the global financial and economic
crisis. If in the early years of the JDP’s rule their popularity
and support by the middle class was conditioned by the advantageous
for the ruling party concurrence of economic factors, which provided
stable and considerable economic growth of Turkey – at the average 7%
annually (to compare the rates of growth in 1993-2002 were only 2.6%),
in 2012 the rates of growth got back to 2.6%.
Though today the JDP preserves the administrative leverages, one can
find similar situations in the history of Turkey; e.g. during the 1960
coup the Democratic Party (DP) had the backing of the majority; and
before the 1980 coup both rightist and leftist radicals opposed army
and diversity of the protesters could be compared with the one today.
But today situation more resembles the one of the late 1950s when the
Republican People’s Party (RPP) which was established by Ataturk2 lost
its power for the first time, losing the parliamentary elections to
Democratic Party.
Multi-party system was formed in Turkey, not without the pressure on
behalf of the international community, in January 1946. In 1945 several
influential politicians, particularly, Celal Bayar (prime-minister
of Turkish Republic in 1937-39) and Adnan Menderes (agrarian from
Menderes River valley in Aydin province) left the Republican People’s
Party and formed Democratic Party of Turkey. At the parliamentary
elections, held in July 1946, party won only 61 of 465 places (RPP –
369 places and independent candidates – 7 places).
By that time there was also discontent with the RPP’s monopoly of
power in the army too; since the mid-1940s secret organizations of
officers had been formed in the Turkish army which became traditional
later. They dealt with the theoretical substantiation and consideration
of practical issues on direct interference into political life of
the country. One of the reasons of discontent was the necessity of
abolishing RPP’s monopoly, which more resembled dictatorship, and
carrying out democratic reforms.
But appearance of the second party – Democratic – on the political
scene in Turkey postponed the first post-Ataturk military coup though
it did not abolish the idea itself.
Weariness of long absolute rule of the Republican People’s Party,
appearance of real alternative for the electorate influenced the
results of the next elections to the Great National Assembly of Turkey
in 1950 – the DP won 408 places in the parliament and RPP – 69 places.
At once after the victory the Democratic Party used its legislative
and executive power to eliminate its rivals; the whole property of
the RPP and all its funds were nationalized and the party was accused
of instigation of illegal actions and fomentation of discontent.
Coming of the DP to the political scene was accompanied by advantageous
economic and international military and political situation: on
September 1, 1947 Turkey joined the US President H.
Truman’s doctrine on economic aid which was based on the necessity
to support “free peoples” which resist the pressure of armed minority
or pressure from abroad3.
At the parliamentary elections in 1954 the Democratic Party even
consolidated its positions but by that time negative processes of both
political and economic character started to develop inside the country.
If in 1946-1952 the annual average growth of prices was 2.2%, in
1953-959 it was about 17%. Opening of the domestic market for the
import of broad assortment of goods under the high level of inflation
caused the 1958 default. In the middle of 1958 the Democratic Party
initiated the so-called Economic Stabilization Programme, which,
in particular, supposed devaluation of the Turkish lire, severing
control over the money and credit issue, growth of the prices for
the public industries’ commodities, etc., but time for the fast
and efficient stabilization of economic situation in the country
was lost. In the eyes of various strata of society A. Menderes’
government acted exclusively in the interests of the ruling elite,
which was close to the Democratic Party and Ä°Å~_ Bank of Turkey.
On the other hand, one-sided economic reforms, carried out by the
DP, its aim at strengthening of a private sector of economy at the
expense of decreasing of public sector, and factual substitution of
the RPP and its monopoly in the politics, caused disappointment of
the army officers.
Besides, despite the fact that back in 1945, when the RPP was in
office, the attitude towards believers in the country became more
tolerant, the society deviated from “extreme laicism”, parliament
passed a number of amendments to the constitution, madrasahs were
opened in the country, etc., it was after accession to power of the
DP when the violations of Ataturk’s precepts and returning of the
religion to the everyday life of the society became large-scale and
threatening. Thus, in 1951 the Menderes government officially permitted
opening imam khatibs (religious schools), which allowed preparing
imams in the country; the ban on reading azan in Arabic was raised;
for the first time religion lessons were included in the curriculum
of a middle school; many mosques and madrasahs were built.
Rivalry of two main political powers, their inability to achieve
compromises factually brought to a standstill of the parliament,
severed mutual criticism, shifted inter-partisan struggle to the
provocations plane.
On April 30, 1959, during the attempt on his life, Ismet Inonu –
ex-president of Turkey and leader of RPP, was wounded. In several
days, on May 4th, only interference of militaries saved him from the
reprisal initiated by the mob of supporters of the DP.
Worsening of general economic situation, political tension, adoption
of reactionary and repressive law on creation of the commission to
investigate “subversive activity” caused social unrest. Students
were the main participants of the demonstrations. On April 28, 1960,
during the dispersal of the demonstration of the Istanbul University
students, police used arms, first victims appeared, and one man was
killed. Emergency rule was imposed in Istanbul and Ankara but the
student unrest was sparked.
It should be mentioned that at the moment when the rivalry between
the RPP and DP reached its peak, army has no common approach to the
issue of necessity, form and ways of reacting. Under the indeterminacy
and passivity of the highest command, the garrison of Ankara with
the support of instructors and students of military schools took the
control over Ankara on May 27, 1960. One of the immediate leaders of
the coup was colonel Arpaslan Turkes. National Unity Committee (NUC)
was established; it included 38 officers holding ranks from captain to
general which was headed by former commander of the Army Cemal Gursel
who resigned because of the disagreement with the policy carried out
by the DP. In consequence of the coup the parliament was dismissed,
the cabinet was arrested, activity of political parties prohibited,
some members of the DP were tried and A. Menderes and two other
ministers were executed.
Nevertheless, the Democratic Party had more supporters and adherents
than the militaries thought; at the 1961 elections its successor
– the Party of Justice, won 158 places in the National Assembly
(lower chamber of the parliament) and 70 places in the Senate (Upper
chamber). Moreover, the RPP, which won correspondingly 173 and 36
places, was obliged to form coalition government though under tough
pressure of the army. The leader of NUC C. Gursel was elected a
new president of Turkey and leader of the RPP I. Inonu headed the
government.
But the 1960 coup, in essence, decided nothing and army had to
interfere into the policy in rather radical way not once.
In the end, Turkish militaries acknowledged that from coup to coup
– whether these were bloody suppressions of unrests in 1960. 1971
or 1980 or bloodless cabinet coup in 1997 – they were loosing the
support of the society. The society has changed and it has been tired
of militaries in the policy.
On the other hand the army itself changed.
Resolute victory of Justice and Development Party, which won 325
mandates of 550 at the parliamentary elections on June 12, 2011,
proved the level of its support and allowed it to carry out active
reforms of the Turkish army in accordance with its interests.
The JDP received such a support in the society against the background
of anti-military trials on “Ergenekon” case (secret organization of
nationalist orientation, which is accused of preparing overthrowing
of acting government; in consequence several hundreds of people
were arrested and convicted) and “Balyoz”4 operation (preparation of
another military coup).
The last demarche of the army took place on the eve of the session of
the Highest Military Council of Turkey which was planned on August
1-4, 2011. when all the highest military command – the Chief of the
General Staff of the Armed Forces of Turkey General A. Koshaner,
Chiefs of the Army, Air Force and Navy resigned as a protest against
the trials against former and serving militaries. While commenting
that situation president A. Gul stated to the journalists: “It is a
situation of emergency but there is no crisis. We took the decision
of the Chief of the General Staff with respect though we would like
him to continue his service. We managed to switch these state of
emergency onto a normal track. The panel session of the Military
Council will take place in scheduled terms and within the limits of
the law”5. And vice-prime-minister B. Bozdag mentioned that only 10%
of the Turkish society reacted to this event. He underlined that
“from today there are no problems in the Turkish armed forces”6.
Actually, if today there are officers in the Turkish army who are
ready to make an attempt of restoration secular Turkey in accordance
with the precepts of Ataturk, they have to take into consideration
the following circumstances:
– Over the entire period when the army still could interfere into
the policy, as well as during the trials of thousands of officers
who either were involved in the coups arranged in the past or the
ones to be prepared, they did not receive any considerable support
on behalf of either public or secular parties;
– Due to the JDP efforts army is put under the strong
counterintelligence control;
– Europe, which is ambiguous about the European prospects of Turkey,
will take any new attempt of militaries to interfere into the domestic
political life of the country as another pretext to refuse Ankara to
continue its negotiations on entering EU;
– Tough reaction of the West to the Egyptian militaries who overthrew
democratically elected president M. Musri, the leader of Freedom and
Justice Party – political wing of “Muslim Brother”, and its wish
to pass the power in the country to civilians. In Egypt both army
turned out to be capable for resolute actions and anti-Islamic forces,
supporting the army, in their turn, still have wide support of the
population. New authorities could not carry out cardinal changes in
the army in one year and to undermine its anti-Islamic moods, unity
and manageability.
Confidence in “his” army can be observed in Erdogan’s decision to
change the Charter of the Armed Forces of the Turkish Republic, thus
sending to the parliament the package of the proposals about further
constriction of the role of the army in the domestic political life of
the country and retaining only functions of repulse of the external
aggression at the very height of the protests – on June 27, 2013,
and realizing that it would be considered no sooner than in autumn
after the parliamentary vacations.
Today when the army is not anything it used to be and mass protests
showed that they do not have a large backing of the population –
mostly among a part of the urbanites and R. Erdogan’s party is still
rather popular among its electorate, the possibility of interference
of the Turkish army is as small as it has never been in the history
of the Turkish Republic.
1 Information and analytical agency ARMENIA Today, July 3, 2013,
2 People’s Party was renamed into Republican People’s Party of Turkey
on November 10, 1924.
3 From the speech of Harry Truman in the US Congress on March
12, 1947; Reproduced from: Zolov A.V. . USA: Struggle for World
Leadership. Kaliningrad, 2000, p. 7 (in Russian)
4 ”Balyoz” – Turk. “Sledgehammer”
5 ДÑ~CÑ~@Ñ~Lев Ð~P. СпеÑ~FÑ~AДÑ~CжбÑ~K и военнÑ~Kе
ТÑ~CÑ~@Ñ~Fии под пÑ~@еÑ~AÑ~Aом пÑ~@авоÑ~AÑ~CдиÑ~O,
6 Ibid
“Globus” analytical journal, #7, 2013
Return Another materials of author INTEGRATION PROSPECTS OF POST-SOVIET
STATES ON THE EXAMPLE OF KIRGIZIA AND UKRAINE (EXPECTATIONS AND
CONCERNS)[03.06.2013] INTENSIFICATION OF RUSSIA-TURKEY INDIRECT
MILITARY AND POLITICAL CONFRONTATION[25.02.2013] GEORGIA: AN
ATTEMPT TO MANEUVER IN A NARROW GAUGE[14.01.2013] SOME ASPECTS
OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF MILITARY AND POLITICAL SITUATION ROUND THE
NAGORNO-KARABAKH CONFLICT [02.08.2012] “IT IS NECESSARY TO RAISE
ENERGY EFFICIENCY”, – says the deputy head of the Center for Political
Studies of “Noravank” Foundation Sergei SARGSYAN in his interview
to “Golos Armenii”[26.07.2012] TRANS-CASPIAN GAS PIPELINE: GOALS,
PROBLEMS AND RISKS [25.06.2012] TURKEY IN THE US MISSILE DEFENCE
SYSTEM: PRIMARY ASSESSMENT AND POSSIBLE PROSPECTS[13.10.2011]
ARMENIA AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE INTERESTS OF THE MILITARY AND
POLITICAL BLOCKS[05.09.2011] SHALE GAS GHOST[08.02.2011] GAS FROM
IRAQI KURDISTAN FOR NABUCCO: TURKISH INTEREST [15.12.2010]
http://www.noravank.am/eng/articles/detail.php?ELEMENT_ID=12275
http://armtoday.info/default.asp?Lang=_Ru&NewsID=91901
http://www.iimes.ru/rus/stat/2012/13-02-12c.htm