TURKEY: THROES OF SECULARISM

31.07.2013

TURKEY: THROES OF SECULARISM

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 İş 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, http://armtoday.info/default.asp?Lang=_Ru&NewsID=91901

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 Гурьев А. Спецслужбы и военные Турции под прессом правосудия, http://www.iimes.ru/rus/stat/2012/13-02-12c.htm

⁶ Ibid

“Globus” analytical journal, #7, 2013

Return

Another materials of author