The apple of the nation's eye

In political philosophy there has long been a tendency to analyze the mechanism of the state by likening it to the human body. In this tendency, represented from Plato to Aristotle, from Farabi to Ghazali, all sections of the state or society are likened to an organ of the body according to the work they do. In none of these descriptions of the political body, in which the brain is generally ascribed to philosophers, sages or scientists, the hands to craftsmen, and the heart to the artist or the ruler, is any organic role resembling the head or the organs in the head ascribed to armies.

The only exception to this is perhaps the position ascribed to the army in this political body in Turkey. In Turkey's conception of the political body, "the army is the apple of the nation's eye."

This is truly an exceptional kind of simile, because, as is known, the pupil of the eye is one of the rare organs in the body that is itself protected by another organ. In fact, this simile is part of a literature of exaltation resorted to in order to express the army's value for this country. And the highest value to which the exaltation actually refers is that it is a "hearth of prophets." As a hearth of prophets, society sees the army as the apple of its eye. Perhaps in this form it should not even be counted as a simile, but if it is counted as a simile, then, as the ancients said, no fault is sought in a simile, yet the faults in this simile also explain very well the army's position and behavior within society.

Truly, the first association established between "protection-shielding," "army" and "pupil of the eye" reveals an oddity in the army's being regarded as the apple of the eye. The army, as an organ whose nature is to protect the nation, has in Turkey always been an extremely fragile and touchy institution that must be protected and exempted from every kind of criticism. That every criticism of an army that, by its position and history, frequently makes mistakes, and indeed, because of its intimate involvement with politics, is in a constant order of error, collides with the sensitivity of "wearing down the army" probably comes from its being seen as an "apple of the eye."

The pupil of the eye cannot protect anyone, and is itself in need of protection; although it is charged with protecting all the other organs of the body, it mobilizes all of them to protect itself. The whole country is mobilized to protect the army. Because once the army is worn down… what, what, what will happen?

The oddity of an institution whose duty is to protect pairing itself with an organ that constantly needs protection is gradually turning into a defect that works its way into the genetics of the whole society. What kind of existence can the existence of a nation be that has to protect the army it has charged with protecting itself, and mobilizes all its being to provide this protection?

Turkey truly needs a very strong army; but an army that does not itself need protection. And a strong army that does not need protection can be ensured only by its being open to criticism, social oversight and contribution. Even if society sees the army as an apple of its eye, the best protection it can provide it is not to stay silent about its mistakes but to try to correct it. For the army belongs to society, not society to the army. Indeed, as society grows stronger it oversees its own army better, and as it oversees it, it moves toward a stronger army.

Otherwise an army that constantly regards itself, in the consistency of an apple of the eye, in a position of unquestionability exempt from every criticism, with "I have spoken, that's final," can never notice the possible rot within itself. In its razor-sharp stylish uniforms, with its extremely splendid images of discipline, it can only sustain an illusion of a "strong army." Yet the reality beneath this image has become something else entirely. That is why Turkey's having a strong army passes first of all through its reaching a strong society; a participatory, critical, accountability-demanding society that sees itself not as the army's subject but as its owner.

The army's position as "apple of the eye" therefore does not fit the simile well, but ascribing it that value in the "value" ranking with the other organs is a separate oddity. As far as I remember, a few years ago in the Islamiyat Journal Bulletin the theologian İlhami Güler made a very meaningful objection to this definition. Why, really, is such a privileged position attributed to certain cadres who, by virtue of the position they hold, are doing only their duties like everyone else? As this privilege is underlined so often, it becomes inevitable that a sense of superiority over other sections of society acquires a political-theological basis.

After all, if the army is in this sense the apple of this nation's eye, what becomes of this nation's university, legislative apparatus, judiciary, government?

What will become of them? Of course, they will all be the guards of that apple of the eye.