Tweet
SAME DISCUSSIONS, ALLEGATIONS PRECEDE MILITARY MEETING
By Mazhar Baa~^Li
Today's Zaman
June 20 2008
Turkey
In the last few years discussions have been held and allegations have
been brought up on the private lives of some military bureaucrats at
the Turkish Armed Forces (TSK) in the months of June and July.
Every single detail of these bureaucrats, including their DNA and
family history, is discussed; however, nothing changes in connection
with these discussions. Some even assert that the discussions
seek to manipulate some facts. In other words, these reports and
rumors are part of a campaign to create public opinion supportive
of predetermined results and outcomes. I have no information as to
why this is the case or who is staging these allegations. It is also
impossible to believe that such a strong institution, known for its
ability to collect intelligence, is actually weak on this matter.
More importantly, why are there frequent and heated discussions on
changes in the command posts of the military bureaucracy whose rules
and standards have been well grounded and identified beforehand? On
what criteria is a plan or decision made to specify who will assume
military office? What separates arbitration from the rule of law? Do
the said discussions make any contribution to these appointments? If
the rules and laws are all set and if all are doing their jobs, why
are some other factors involved in the process? It is possible to offer
many other questions; what is apparent is that the military bureaucracy
does not consider itself equal to other types of bureaucracy. I should
also note that the military bureaucracy should come to the awareness
that nowhere in the world do the self-considerations of the military
suffice to determine its place on the political stage. Civilian
legislation and a set of regulations are strongly needed to govern the
military bureaucracy simply because the rationality that the military
bureaucracy relies on and the rationale of the civilian sphere and
social structure are distinct.
Military bureaucracy, society and history
It is not possible to design the civilian sphere using military
rationality; however, it is possible to design the military bureaucracy
with civilian rationality. It should also be noted that the military
sphere should be designed by civilian rationality because the overall
experience so far requires this. But why has this not been the case
in Turkey? Why does the General Staff assume the responsibility and
duty in every political case to respond and take action in an attempt
to deal with the incident? Why does it issue statements against
administrations in power and even against opposition parties? Turkey
is a country that experiences the same problems encountered all over
the world. However, the way these problems are brought to the political
agenda restricts their discussion to a metaphoric sphere and rhetoric,
blocking the domination of civilian rationality.
In order to emphasize a certain ideology, clichés are used, clichés
such as: the society actually has no problems, the problems are
created by external actors; we have enemies that seek to curb our
economic growth; the entire world envies us; we are surrounded by
enemies; the public suffers from unawareness so much so that it
votes for those who scratch their bellies; Turks have no friends
other than Turks; and the EU seeks to partition our country. However,
this refers to a sociologically unethical situation. The only way to
reinforce or strengthen societies, states and even individuals is to
make sure that they are open to criticism. The logic of this is pretty
simple. Institutions that can be criticized are able to become aware
of their shortcomings more easily and take more effective actions
to correct them. Those who cannot stand criticism do not want to
strengthen criticized institutions.
If even families' sacrificing their sons for the sake of this
country's survival cannot prove their loyalty, what is there that
will? If there is a crisis of confidence, citizens should not be
the ones to blame. What created this crisis are a series of shady,
non-transparent incidents wherein justice has yet to be applied such as
the Å~^emdinli case, a November 2005 bombing in Å~^emdinli in which two
noncommissioned officers were caught red-handed bombing a bookstore
owned by a former member of the terrorist Kurdistan Workers' Party
(PKK); developments behind the Hrant Dink incident in which a prominent
journalist of Armenian origin was murdered; operations by the military
to create special files or a black list on individuals' patriotism;
friendship and close relations with supreme judiciary actors; and the
Ergenekon case, a shady gang whose members allegedly perpetrated a
number of attacks and bombings to create chaos that would eventually
lead to the overthrowing of the Justice and Development Party (AK
Party) government. It is only natural that there are individuals with
bad faith in every institution. What is not normal or ethical is any
allegation that a society or institution is bad in its entirety. In
short, making generalizations on history and society is appealing
to people. However, it is ontologically contradictory to reality
and ethics because attempting to read history and society based on
prejudices and judgments is an ideological stance. Even though it
is impossible to discuss or inquire free of judgments and values,
deliberately acting judgmentally includes unethical references.
Currently, the impact of the said prejudices and stereotypes on
the assessment and evaluation of social events is a heated matter of
discussion. In other words, social scientists are focusing on research
methods to get rid of judgments and values inclusive of cliché
statements and accusations. The success of this inquiry is debatable,
but it is obvious that in the present world, thinking in reference
to a narrow set of prescriptions, seeking to understand the values
of other groups through our values and failing to evaluate social
events as multi-factorial facts is not sociologically adequate. In
the final analysis, what we call a society is a text that can be
reconstructed in every separate reading and everyone has a different
method of reading. However, Turkey has a structure that remains highly
principled on this matter.
*Professor Mazhar Baglı is an instructor at Dicle University.
--Boundary_(ID_Be3IIFOW2tqP5TBeOWAQkg )--
By Mazhar Baa~^Li
Today's Zaman
June 20 2008
Turkey
In the last few years discussions have been held and allegations have
been brought up on the private lives of some military bureaucrats at
the Turkish Armed Forces (TSK) in the months of June and July.
Every single detail of these bureaucrats, including their DNA and
family history, is discussed; however, nothing changes in connection
with these discussions. Some even assert that the discussions
seek to manipulate some facts. In other words, these reports and
rumors are part of a campaign to create public opinion supportive
of predetermined results and outcomes. I have no information as to
why this is the case or who is staging these allegations. It is also
impossible to believe that such a strong institution, known for its
ability to collect intelligence, is actually weak on this matter.
More importantly, why are there frequent and heated discussions on
changes in the command posts of the military bureaucracy whose rules
and standards have been well grounded and identified beforehand? On
what criteria is a plan or decision made to specify who will assume
military office? What separates arbitration from the rule of law? Do
the said discussions make any contribution to these appointments? If
the rules and laws are all set and if all are doing their jobs, why
are some other factors involved in the process? It is possible to offer
many other questions; what is apparent is that the military bureaucracy
does not consider itself equal to other types of bureaucracy. I should
also note that the military bureaucracy should come to the awareness
that nowhere in the world do the self-considerations of the military
suffice to determine its place on the political stage. Civilian
legislation and a set of regulations are strongly needed to govern the
military bureaucracy simply because the rationality that the military
bureaucracy relies on and the rationale of the civilian sphere and
social structure are distinct.
Military bureaucracy, society and history
It is not possible to design the civilian sphere using military
rationality; however, it is possible to design the military bureaucracy
with civilian rationality. It should also be noted that the military
sphere should be designed by civilian rationality because the overall
experience so far requires this. But why has this not been the case
in Turkey? Why does the General Staff assume the responsibility and
duty in every political case to respond and take action in an attempt
to deal with the incident? Why does it issue statements against
administrations in power and even against opposition parties? Turkey
is a country that experiences the same problems encountered all over
the world. However, the way these problems are brought to the political
agenda restricts their discussion to a metaphoric sphere and rhetoric,
blocking the domination of civilian rationality.
In order to emphasize a certain ideology, clichés are used, clichés
such as: the society actually has no problems, the problems are
created by external actors; we have enemies that seek to curb our
economic growth; the entire world envies us; we are surrounded by
enemies; the public suffers from unawareness so much so that it
votes for those who scratch their bellies; Turks have no friends
other than Turks; and the EU seeks to partition our country. However,
this refers to a sociologically unethical situation. The only way to
reinforce or strengthen societies, states and even individuals is to
make sure that they are open to criticism. The logic of this is pretty
simple. Institutions that can be criticized are able to become aware
of their shortcomings more easily and take more effective actions
to correct them. Those who cannot stand criticism do not want to
strengthen criticized institutions.
If even families' sacrificing their sons for the sake of this
country's survival cannot prove their loyalty, what is there that
will? If there is a crisis of confidence, citizens should not be
the ones to blame. What created this crisis are a series of shady,
non-transparent incidents wherein justice has yet to be applied such as
the Å~^emdinli case, a November 2005 bombing in Å~^emdinli in which two
noncommissioned officers were caught red-handed bombing a bookstore
owned by a former member of the terrorist Kurdistan Workers' Party
(PKK); developments behind the Hrant Dink incident in which a prominent
journalist of Armenian origin was murdered; operations by the military
to create special files or a black list on individuals' patriotism;
friendship and close relations with supreme judiciary actors; and the
Ergenekon case, a shady gang whose members allegedly perpetrated a
number of attacks and bombings to create chaos that would eventually
lead to the overthrowing of the Justice and Development Party (AK
Party) government. It is only natural that there are individuals with
bad faith in every institution. What is not normal or ethical is any
allegation that a society or institution is bad in its entirety. In
short, making generalizations on history and society is appealing
to people. However, it is ontologically contradictory to reality
and ethics because attempting to read history and society based on
prejudices and judgments is an ideological stance. Even though it
is impossible to discuss or inquire free of judgments and values,
deliberately acting judgmentally includes unethical references.
Currently, the impact of the said prejudices and stereotypes on
the assessment and evaluation of social events is a heated matter of
discussion. In other words, social scientists are focusing on research
methods to get rid of judgments and values inclusive of cliché
statements and accusations. The success of this inquiry is debatable,
but it is obvious that in the present world, thinking in reference
to a narrow set of prescriptions, seeking to understand the values
of other groups through our values and failing to evaluate social
events as multi-factorial facts is not sociologically adequate. In
the final analysis, what we call a society is a text that can be
reconstructed in every separate reading and everyone has a different
method of reading. However, Turkey has a structure that remains highly
principled on this matter.
*Professor Mazhar Baglı is an instructor at Dicle University.
--Boundary_(ID_Be3IIFOW2tqP5TBeOWAQkg )--