Tweet
Today's Zaman, Turkey
Aug 24 2008
Do we need the gendarmerie?
by IHSAN YILMAZ
The Justice and Development Party (AK Party) government has promised
to deliver a new democratization package that includes keeping the
gendarmerie forces firmly under civilian control. But, I am not sure
if we even need this separate force for internal security purposes in
this day and age anyway. Reading the indictment in the Ergenekon case
-- a crime network accused of trying to overthrow the government --
and its evidence files reminds me to ask again if the advantages of
having the gendarmerie in Turkey outweigh the disadvantages.
The presidential election crisis of last year, the April 27 memo
(issued by the General Staff), the AK Party closure case (recently
heard by the Constitutional Court) and, last but not least, the
Ergenekon case have strongly shown that it is democracy that is in
clear and present danger in Turkey. No one can turn Turkey into a
backward, theocratic state, but it has become obvious that there are
many people who are very eager to shed blood to create instability in
the country in order to topple the democratically elected
government. People eager to do this have access to all sorts of
weapons. Unfortunately, the Ergenekon case evidence files strongly
show that several members of the gendarmerie are among these people
and that they have not hesitated to make use of the gendarmerie's
resources for their perverse aims.
Take, for instance, the example of Erg?Ã?¼n Poyraz, who claims to be a
researcher and writer. Among his works are libelous books "proving"
that both President Abdullah G?Ã?¼l and Prime Minister Recep Tayyip
Erdo?Ä?an are crypto-Jews. Strangely, courts have always let him
go. The latest we've learned of him is that he was working for and was
paid by the gendarmerie. Nowadays, dailies are full of reports of
Poyraz being protected by three gendarmerie officers, assigned to be
his bodyguards, and his anti-AK Party messenger activities,
facilitating communication between soldiers, judges, civilians and so
on. The Poyraz case is only one example. Anyone who closely follows
the case of Hrant Dink, a Turkish-Armenian journalist who was
assassinated in January 2007, knows of other examples.
The gendarmerie's Web site boasts that they are responsible for 92
percent of Turkish territory. Its responsibilities range from traffic
control to anti-terrorism operations, from crime-prevention and
internal security to border control. These are all huge tasks and,
unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of its personnel comprises
non-professional conscripts whose limited education and experience are
insufficient in tackling today's complicated internal security issues.
Being aware of this, the gendarmerie is also trying to put together a
professional force and this is reflected in the increasing percentage
of its professional members. But if we have to spend money and provide
salaries to its personnel, unlike conscripts, why do we not simply
increase the number of police officers? If we merge the gendarmerie
with the police (see the Belgian and Austrian reforms), which is
already directly under civilian and democratic control -- unlike the
gendarmerie -- we will also tackle problems stemming from the military
force's jurisdiction over the civilian population, which is
unacceptable.
The gendarmerie could continue its non-police or military duties as
part of the Land Forces, and we will not have to have a
"schizophrenic" institution that is definitely a part of the military
in practice and nominally subordinate to civilians but has
jurisdiction over them and oversees 92 percent of Turkey. The
Ergenekon case should also be read as a symptom of this schizophrenia.
The overwhelming majority of the gendarmerie forces are, of course,
not responsible for this situation. It is the politicians' duty to
monitor changes and developments in society and to use legislation to
fine tune accordingly in order to have a more just country.
24.08.2008
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
Aug 24 2008
Do we need the gendarmerie?
by IHSAN YILMAZ
The Justice and Development Party (AK Party) government has promised
to deliver a new democratization package that includes keeping the
gendarmerie forces firmly under civilian control. But, I am not sure
if we even need this separate force for internal security purposes in
this day and age anyway. Reading the indictment in the Ergenekon case
-- a crime network accused of trying to overthrow the government --
and its evidence files reminds me to ask again if the advantages of
having the gendarmerie in Turkey outweigh the disadvantages.
The presidential election crisis of last year, the April 27 memo
(issued by the General Staff), the AK Party closure case (recently
heard by the Constitutional Court) and, last but not least, the
Ergenekon case have strongly shown that it is democracy that is in
clear and present danger in Turkey. No one can turn Turkey into a
backward, theocratic state, but it has become obvious that there are
many people who are very eager to shed blood to create instability in
the country in order to topple the democratically elected
government. People eager to do this have access to all sorts of
weapons. Unfortunately, the Ergenekon case evidence files strongly
show that several members of the gendarmerie are among these people
and that they have not hesitated to make use of the gendarmerie's
resources for their perverse aims.
Take, for instance, the example of Erg?Ã?¼n Poyraz, who claims to be a
researcher and writer. Among his works are libelous books "proving"
that both President Abdullah G?Ã?¼l and Prime Minister Recep Tayyip
Erdo?Ä?an are crypto-Jews. Strangely, courts have always let him
go. The latest we've learned of him is that he was working for and was
paid by the gendarmerie. Nowadays, dailies are full of reports of
Poyraz being protected by three gendarmerie officers, assigned to be
his bodyguards, and his anti-AK Party messenger activities,
facilitating communication between soldiers, judges, civilians and so
on. The Poyraz case is only one example. Anyone who closely follows
the case of Hrant Dink, a Turkish-Armenian journalist who was
assassinated in January 2007, knows of other examples.
The gendarmerie's Web site boasts that they are responsible for 92
percent of Turkish territory. Its responsibilities range from traffic
control to anti-terrorism operations, from crime-prevention and
internal security to border control. These are all huge tasks and,
unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of its personnel comprises
non-professional conscripts whose limited education and experience are
insufficient in tackling today's complicated internal security issues.
Being aware of this, the gendarmerie is also trying to put together a
professional force and this is reflected in the increasing percentage
of its professional members. But if we have to spend money and provide
salaries to its personnel, unlike conscripts, why do we not simply
increase the number of police officers? If we merge the gendarmerie
with the police (see the Belgian and Austrian reforms), which is
already directly under civilian and democratic control -- unlike the
gendarmerie -- we will also tackle problems stemming from the military
force's jurisdiction over the civilian population, which is
unacceptable.
The gendarmerie could continue its non-police or military duties as
part of the Land Forces, and we will not have to have a
"schizophrenic" institution that is definitely a part of the military
in practice and nominally subordinate to civilians but has
jurisdiction over them and oversees 92 percent of Turkey. The
Ergenekon case should also be read as a symptom of this schizophrenia.
The overwhelming majority of the gendarmerie forces are, of course,
not responsible for this situation. It is the politicians' duty to
monitor changes and developments in society and to use legislation to
fine tune accordingly in order to have a more just country.
24.08.2008
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress