A True Test for Democracy: Turks Fear of a Fifth Military Coup by Nigar Hacizade

Turkey is a secular country, states the Turkish Constitution, which is one of the only two in the world to mention secularism as a principle. Indeed, the notion of separating the affairs of the state and religion has been of primary concern to the ruling elite of Turkey since the Republic’s foundation in 1923. Trying to isolate the new country from the old Ottoman mentality, which proved itself to be anti-modern, Turkish politicians executed a series of reforms, ranging from giving suffrage to women to changing the dress code, abandoning the Islamic calendar and the Arabic alphabet, the abolishment of the Caliphate and so on. It is highly debatable whether these reforms were understood, welcomed or internalized by the majority of the people. In any case, they were top-down and quite harsh in their implementation, evidenced in the hanging of dozens of people for wearing the traditional fez or turban instead of the Western hat.

Founded by Kemal Ataturk, himself a revolutionary soldier, Turkey switched to a multi-party system in 1945 (again, in a top-down decision), but the army could not tolerate the Democratic Party which was elected for a second round, and intervened with a coup d’Etat in 1960. The Prime Minister, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and the Minister of Finance were executed.

47 years have passed since then. In the meantime, Turkey witnessed three more military interventions; in 1971, 1980 and 1997. While only the year 1980 witnessed thousands of deaths and more asylum seekers, arrests, torture and bans on freedom of speech than the other times, the “post-modern coup” in 1997, in which the army forced the Islamic-inclined Prime Minister Necmettin Erbakan to resign and shut his party down through the constitutional court, was quite unexpected. In any case, the following decade saw enough optimism that people became confident they would not have to face another coup. After all, Turkey had a promising future as one of the fastest growing economies in the world, passing its European Union accession laws one by one. The ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP in its Turkish acronym), itself ruled by a former ally of Erbakan, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, naturally had its controversies, but in certain aspects –including the process of EU candidacy- Turkey was doing better than ever. The EU was even pushing for diminishing the role of the army in Turkish politics for a more democratic setting. Well, it turned out the army had no such intentions.

Around midnight On Friday April 27^th 2007, the day the Parliament held presidential elections, the General Staff issued a statement on its official website. Voicing their concerns about where the country is headed, the authorities warned the government about insisting on its controversial presidential candidate as well as for its “reactionary activities”, firmly stating that as the permanent guardian of the Republican values, the army would not allow for the secular structure of the Turkish Republic to ever be altered. "The Turkish armed forces are against those debates... and will display their position and attitudes when it becomes necessary. No-one should doubt that," the statement said. The next day, the government’s representative appeared on TV. In his statement, he criticized an intervention and stated that such a move can do nothing but damage democracy and manipulate the constitutional court. The court needed to make a decision in the following days on whether the presidential elections were valid or not. On Sunday April 29^th 2007, around 1 million people were on the streets of Istanbul in a follow-up demonstration to the one in Ankara held the week before. The demonstrators wanted to voice their support for the secular values of the Republic against the ruling AKP and Erdogan, which they believe, are still invested in Islamic values and have not genuinely reformed, as they claim.

The tension between “the secularists” and “the Islamists” has been turned into a crisis by the army. According to some, the General Staff timed its statement in a way that would make the protesters look like they are in support of a military intervention. While the demonstrators were quite diverse in age, gender and background, middle-class, “modern,” “white” Turks constituted a vast majority. On the one hand, some carried banners that read “Neither sharia nor a coup; we want democracy in Turkey.” On the other hand, the speakers refrained from condemning an intervention, like the government did, implying a coup would not have consequences as vital as if the country is to be ruled by pro-Sharia Islamists.

Is the secular structure of the country really in danger? The answer to this question has been dividing the country, creating a degree of polarization unseen since 1980. Objectively speaking, one thing is certain: the ruling party has not done anything illegitimate so far. They have come to power, took the majority of the seats in Parliament, and proposed their presidential candidate legitimately. In fact, even if it is claimed that the Constitution, the make-up of the Parliament or the methods for presidential elections are flawed, these are hardly the fault of the AKP. If anything, it should be remembered that Turkey is still using the constitution imposed by the military regime after the last coup in 1980. The current president Ahmet Necdet Sezer, who is a staunch defender of Kemalism and secularism, has been elected under the same law. The question arises: why did the Republican People’s Party (the leading opposition party; CHP in its Turkish acronym) refuse to be present at the parliament during the elections, and later sued AKP for holding the elections despite their absence?

For one thing, the candidate’s –Abdullah Gul, current Foreign Minister- wife wears a headscarf. The presidency is a highly ceremonial position in the Turkish system, but being a post Ataturk once held, it is also highly symbolic. For many, a first lady with a headscarf is unthinkable. It is viewed as a symbol of political Islam. This would be against every ideal the Republic stands for, and should be avoided, even if a military coup is the only way to do so. For a country that is 99% Muslim, that is almost weird, but Turkey is a weird country.

The other, less superficial reason is that Republicanism is more than an ideology in Turkey; it is a way of living. For the elite class in Turkey which for decades has been trying to align itself with Europe and “Europeanness”, while looking down upon Turkey’s Middle-Eastern and post-Soviet neighbors, this lifestyle is in danger. For years the country has been ruled either by or under the shadow of the army, the strongest defender of this way of life. From the day AKP won the majority of the votes in 2003 becoming the single ruling party after a decade of unsuccessful coalition governments, this ruling elite has been alerted. Appealing to the “less European” and claiming to blend a degree of nationalism, conservatism but also democratic ideals, AKP was going to be only the second government in the history of the Republic to ever finish its term as scheduled, without early elections or intervention, had this crisis not happened. What consequences this would have had; we will never know.

On Wednesday, May 2^nd, the constitutional court ruled against the presidential vote. It is obvious that the decision was under the influence of the army and that it was a political and not a legal one. What divides people is that while the secularists claim this is “for the best, even if influenced”, the government and its supporters have called the decision “a blow on democracy.”

Now the country is getting ready to vote in the early elections in July, which the Prime Minister Erdogan announced even before the court’s decision. Everyone, including members of AKP, Gul himself, the opposition, bureaucrats and journalists, came to a consensus that bowing to the “people’s will” was the only solution to get the country out of this crisis. A number of constitutional changes are also in order, including having the President elected by the people and changing the make-up of the Parliament to allow for more opposition parties to be represented.

While so many secularists voice their discontent with the opposition and mainly CHP, whose only card to play is the secularism one, they see no other option but to vote for one of them; anything to get rid of AKP and the possibility of a first lady wearing a head scarf. They are afraid that the Islamist-rooted party might try and intervene in what they wear, what they drink, or how they live. Others see this fear as ungrounded, and explain how a more conservative Turkey and a coup will both damage the country. The Turkish economy is growing at an almost unstoppable rate, and pays its foreign debt thanks to the foreign investment which annually brings $30 billion to the country. Either of the options will halt this progression and take the country back in time. AKP is confident it will come out of the elections as strong as before, while two of the three main opposition parties that are in the center-right are preparing to merge before the elections to ensure more votes.

It should be obvious to anyone that there is absolutely no way Turkey could benefit from another military coup. It never has. Especially those who have experienced the destructiveness of the former interventions should urge the supporters of such an intervention to come to their senses. Some foreign commentators have stated that Turkish democracy might even come out of this test stronger than before. One question remains though: what will the Army do if AKP comes through in the July elections or if Gul is elected president by the people? Will it risk everything it has achieved in the last 20 years to protect its hegemony, or will it finally accept that democracy means accepting those who think differently? The latter is what Turkey needs more than anything right now.