From authoritarian silence to the speaking soldier

In a democratic country, it is of course not possible for a military official to assess the country’s agenda on political matters so freely. A significant part of the views expressed by Gen. İlker Başbuğ in his back-to-back speeches concern subjects that have nothing to do with his own field of duty. How democratic, how open to initiatives, and how much more far-sighted than his predecessors he is in his speech is not very important at this point. In principle, evaluating speeches he makes as if he were authorised on matters outside his duty means nothing other than creating an authority that does not exist and making it valid in practice.

Undoubtedly this is the bad side of the matter. But if we look at it not to console ourselves but to wake up to a reality, the matter also has a side that is not as bad (if not good).

Let us, if you like, look at the good side of the matter from the fact of Başbuğ’s “speaking” itself rather than from the content of his speeches. You know, there was once a period when military tutelage was exercised with heavy authoritarianism, without the military speaking at all. Not in a very distant past: days when the politician could hardly take a step in almost any field without looking to the military, and when he explained neither the reason nor the logic of any step he took, nor accounted for it.

The characterisation that, in my view, best expressed the period in which all politics was blocked in this way, from the Kurdish issue to the Cyprus issue, from northern Iraq to the headscarf and education issues, was given by Kürşat Bumin: “authoritarian silence.”

In my opinion, this was the style of a truly military tutelage: an authoritarianism that determined everything yet would not account for anything… How could it account? A power that, because none of the authority it exercised had any legal basis, did not risk sinking by speaking, and in this way produced a limitless source of authority.

Rejecting Gen. Başbuğ’s speaking, one way or another, wholesale by reference to ideal democratic standards is one way, but one must also see the road Turkey has passed, or not passed. The military speaking, one way or another, is of course far better than attempting to carry out tutelage through authoritarian silence.

There is, once again, a “the power is with us” reminder in Başbuğ’s speech, but in my view this form of expression has been considerably overshadowed by the military’s discourse of “accountability” to the public. The fact that the military has today begun to account for the tutelage it has established over politics on many issues, Ergenekon foremost among them, however wrong that account may be, is a picture of “welcome to the desert of our own political reality.” Provided only that the military agrees to speak and to answer questions. In a democratic country, could there be a greater gain than this?

Personally, although Başbuğ’s statements contain a number of errors of knowledge, logic and reasoning, I find it extremely positive that he wants to express himself in some way and is trying to explain the military’s position before the laws, democratic values and public opinion. Even though in both of his speeches there are matters of exceeding authority that he mostly strives to repeat in his rhetoric, I value the sincerity reflected in his tone of voice and his effort to explain.

This level of speaking is the point at which dialogue, rather than the one-sided address of authoritarian silence, works to the benefit of all parties. As the military speaks, it will also find the way to correct the mistakes it makes through the questions it faces.

This question, for instance: “Has an investigation been conducted into the coup diaries?”

Gen. Başbuğ answered this question “no.” Then, from the moment this question was asked, he will have to face all the questions it triggers:

Is the possibility of a coup considered so insignificant within an army? Coups are not merely attempts by the military against civilian authority; first of all, they are also a grave crime against the military, since they break the military’s own internal hierarchy. The greatest danger that would threaten even an army, let alone a democracy, is the coup culture or attempt. Is it a weakness to be easily passed over that the TSK is almost unaware of formations within its own body that have made coup attempts a habit?

Does this not mean that the army cannot protect even itself from coups? How will an army that cannot protect itself protect the country from other dangers? If the TSK was not aware of these coup attempts, that is of course a separate problem, and if it was aware and is not taking action, will it not need to give an explanation, or rather a correction, for this?

If we have started to speak, questions will demand their answers..