How militaristic are we?
 
 
  |  
  |  
  |  
  |  
RSS
  |  
  |  
  |  
24 May 2013 Friday
 
 
 
 
 
 
Columnists 08 May 2012, Tuesday 0 0 0 0
DOĞU ERGİL
d.ergil@todayszaman.com

How militaristic are we?

The word military refers to an armed, uniformed professional cohort. But militarism is something more than the sphere of existence of the referred group. It is a state of mind and an organizational format that intends to shape society in the form of a military organization bound by a chain of command and disciplined to be a solidarity entity where differences are rare and hierarchic.

In this sense Turkish society has been under the educational, legal and organizational spell of a militaristic mentality since the inception of the republic. Now this is changing. However, despite democratic reforms and advances in civilian rule, it would be interesting to see the remnants of militarism in public opinion. I will follow on my last article referring to a recent poll taken by MetroPoll on coups.

When asked “How would your confidence in the army be affected if it intervenes in politics?” According to the findings, 19.1 percent of the voters indicated “it would increase their confidence,” 54 percent said they would lose confidence, 20.9 percent said that “their attitude would not change,” and 6 percent have no idea or answer (HNIA).

When broken down according to party affiliations, the answers are as follows: For Justice and Development Party (AKP) voters, 17.2 percent said their “confidence will increase,” 18.3 percent said “their attitude will not change,” and 57.9 percent said their “confidence will diminish.” Responses for the Republican People’s Party (CHP) were 24.8 percent, 31.8 percent and 40.1 percent, respectively. Taken together, 56.6 percent of CHP supporters would either be happy or remain indifferent to military tutelage. As regards Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) supporters, 25.2 percent said their confidence will increase, 14.5 percent will not be affected (together 39.7 percent), while 58 percent will lose confidence. As would be expected, Peace and Democracy Party (BDP) followers are much more opposed to military intervention in politics: 13.3 percent said their confidence will increase, 6.7 percent said their attitude will not change, and 80 percent said they will lose confidence. The summary of these figures is that the CHP is the singular political party that harbors militaristic leanings among political parties in Turkey followed by the MHP, which is popularly believed to be more pro-military than the former.

When asked whether the command of the General Staff should be attached to the Ministry of Defense (as opposed to the Prime Ministry, which gives it virtual autonomy), 57.3 percent of AKP supporters said “yes” and 27.1 percent said “no,” 42.1 percent of CHP supporters indicated “yes” with 49.2 percent “no,” 49.2 percent of MHP supporters said “yes” and 48.1 percent said “no.” Of the BDP supporters 42.2 percent said “yes,” and 51.1 percent said “no.” It seems the confidence of the BDP in civilian politics, especially the AKP, is less than its confidence in the army, as we have lately learned that it has carried on negotiations in secret with the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK).

When asked “whether Article 35 of the military bylaws that give the army the authority to protect and uphold the republican regime should be changed,” 36.3 percent of all the voters said “yes,” 25.5 percent said no, and 38.2 percent remained undecided.

The undecided category is distributed as follows: the AKP 38.2 percent, the CHP 29.8 percent, the MHP 35.1 percent and the BDP 15.6 percent. Of the AKP voters, 42.1 percent are for attaching the chief of General Staff to the Ministry of Defense, whereas 15.9 percent are against it. Among CHP voters, 26.9 percent are for, and 43.4 percent are against; 23.7 percent of MHP voters support the initiative, whereas 41.2 percent oppose it; among BDP voters these inclinations are, respectively, 75.6 percent and 8.9 percent.

Maybe the most critical question on the interview sheet was, “Would you go out and protest if there was an attempted military coup today?” The results: 65.8 percent indicated “yes, I would,” whereas 26.7 percent said “no” with 7.4 percent, according to HNIA. To the same question, 71 percent of AKP supporters answered positively and 23.7 percent negatively; 59.1 percent of CHP voters indicated they would protest, 33.9 percent would remain aloof. MHP voters are not much different, with 59.5 percent protesting and 34.4 percent remaining indifferent. However, 77.8 percent of BDP voters are determined to protest, with just 13.3 percent remaining indifferent.

It seems militarism or seeing the military as a guardian will linger on for some time to come.

Columnists Previous articles of the columnist
20 May 2013
Syria in the eye of the beholder
19 May 2013
Syria between a rock and a hard place
14 May 2013
Syria exploding
12 May 2013
Awakening
7 May 2013
Iraq in turmoil (1)
5 May 2013
Questions and sincerity
30 April 2013
Poisonous questions
28 April 2013
Pride and Prejudice
23 April 2013
Scenes from Central Anatolia
21 April 2013
Official vs. Civic
16 April 2013
Iraqi Turkmens
14 April 2013
Oh Kurd (2)
9 April 2013
Oh Kurd (1)
7 April 2013
Oh Turk, (2)
2 April 2013
Oh Turk,
31 March 2013
Syria and Kurds
26 March 2013
Israel's apology
24 March 2013
Time to celebrate
19 March 2013
Meltdown
17 March 2013
A new phase in globalization
12 March 2013
A day for women
10 March 2013
EU membership: realities and aspirations
5 March 2013
The leak and the aftermath
3 March 2013
Where to tap?
26 February 2013
Syrian stalemate and the tragedy of inaction
24 February 2013
Presidency and the ‘grand peace’ offer
19 February 2013
Hope and caution
17 February 2013
Political perceptions
12 February 2013
Europe vs. Asia; elite vs. public
10 February 2013
Scenarios in the Syrian conflict
5 February 2013
Assessment of political and economic trends
3 February 2013
From Brussels to Shanghai
29 January 2013
Egypt and Iran
27 January 2013
‘Open Networks, Closed Regimes’
22 January 2013
Kurdish landscape is bustling
20 January 2013
Dividends of peace
15 January 2013
Peace with the dragon
13 January 2013
Dangers ahead
8 January 2013
Changes and challenges to understanding the Kurdish problem
6 January 2013
New year, new constitution?
1 January 2013
The 8 most interesting things we learned in 2012
30 December 2012
A 2012 account of Turkish foreign policy
25 December 2012
Interesting developments
23 December 2012
Iraqi prospects in Kurdish parentheses
18 December 2012
Turkey’s popularity in the Middle East
16 December 2012
Civil war in words and deeds
11 December 2012
Suicides in the army
9 December 2012
The pro-coup makeup in our DNA
4 December 2012
The secret army
2 December 2012
Violence against women
27 November 2012
The Kurdish house
25 November 2012
After the hunger strikes
20 November 2012
Is this a war?
18 November 2012
Life is a mirror: You get what you give
13 November 2012
Remembering and contemplating Atatürk
11 November 2012
Ending hunger strikes and political folly
6 November 2012
Elections and US foreign policy debate
23 October 2012
A slightly different competition
21 October 2012
Syria tough test for goals of ex-Ottomans
16 October 2012
Strategic depth (1)
9 October 2012
On war
7 October 2012
Another name for Syria: uncertainty
2 October 2012
Regional dynamics at play at the AKP congress
30 September 2012
The AKP congress
25 September 2012
Turkey, Israel and Egypt
23 September 2012
Systemic flaws
18 September 2012
On extremism
16 September 2012
Shadow boxing
11 September 2012
Tenacity of Syrian regime
9 September 2012
Questions and prejudices
4 September 2012
The Syrian enigma
2 September 2012
A bold new world?
28 August 2012
Here we stand?
26 August 2012
Questioning the Kurdish question
21 August 2012
US elections frivolous games
19 August 2012
One more time
14 August 2012
Syrian challenges
12 August 2012
Turkey’s Kurdish imbroglio as seen from outside
7 August 2012
Brotherhood?
5 August 2012
Syria unfolding
31 July 2012
Syria and Turkey: a friendship that went astray
29 July 2012
Whither goes the regime change in Syria
24 July 2012
Two-tier war in Syria
22 July 2012
Living with the hegemon
17 July 2012
Differing official rhetoric and common problems
15 July 2012
Turkey in the Syrian ‘problem’
10 July 2012
Strangers in their own land
8 July 2012
Russia and Israel on Syria
3 July 2012
The princess and the phoenix
1 July 2012
Reciprocity
26 June 2012
An intricate strategy
24 June 2012
Egypt’s hijacked spring
19 June 2012
Hopeful developments
17 June 2012
Dynamics of the Syrian conflict
12 June 2012
Kurdish issue redux
10 June 2012
The other world
5 June 2012
The abortion debate and beyond
3 June 2012
Conquest and discovery
29 May 2012
NATO’S near future
27 May 2012
Qualities of power
...