Turkish Coup, 2016

Coup d'état is a common feature of the Turkish Republic.  In 1960, the military unseated a prime minister who had notions of allying with Russia rather than the US.  However, after he was swept from the stage, the military returned the country to civilian control.  A decade later in 1971, the country was crumbling and the military issued a 'memorandum' for the civilian government to get its act together or else.  This resulted in a political shake up and extended martial law but no actual coup.  In 1980, there was another coup, a very serious and deadly affair that saw hundreds of thousands arrested, tens of thousands tried on charges of belonging to this or that organization, thousands recommended for death penalties, hundreds sentenced to death, and 50 executed.  In the wake of the Iranian Revolution of 1979, the US had supported this coup.  In 1982, tentative civilian control resumed under a military-approved constitution.  In 1997, another 'memorandum' was issued by the military.  The prime minister resigned and a new government was formed under the first female leader for Turkey, Tansu Ciller.

 

Why is it that the military keeps taking over for short periods?  Typically, a military coup results in an extended dictatorship for the coup leader.  Why hasn't that been the case in Turkey?  To understand why that is, one must know something of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk.  When I visited Turkey in 2001 - only a few weeks after the 9/11 attack - I heard a great deal about Ataturk.  The most common refrain from our guide was that he 'was like a God to us.'  Indeed, Mustafa Kemal was the Ottoman General at the Battle of Gallipoli during World War I, a rare victory for the Turks in that war.  He went on to win Turkish Independence and set about reforming the country into a Western one.  He pushed the Turks to adopt a Western mode of dress, granted full political rights to women, abolished the veiling of women, did away with the segregation of the sexes, adopted a new Latin-based alphabet (dumping the Arabic that had been in use), supported art that had been suppressed by the Ottomans, closed Islamic courts in favor of secular ones, had the Koran translated into Turkish and read on the radio, and on and on.  It was a Herculean task and he set out to do it.

 

What would Ataturk have thought of Recep Tayyip Erdogan, current President, former Prime Minister, and avowed Islamist who has restored some aspects of the Ottoman era?  Erdogan and his ilk have wanted to backslide, to undo much of Ataturk's work.  By contrast, the military has long been the guarantor of Ataturk's vision, disposing of those leaders who want to return to Ottoman and/or Islamist practice.  Erdogan was imprisoned in 1998 for threatening the secularism of Turkey.  Since his ascent to power, Erdogan has sought to purge the military in order to short-circuit exactly what is now happening.  He doesn't want the military to restore secular government; he wants to establish an Islamic state.

 

Whether the coup succeeds or not, the military is in an unending conflict to prevent an Islamist government.  The country is almost universally Muslim and will continue to vote for Islamist leaders.  The only long term solution is conversion to another faith.  Highly unlikely.  In the meantime, good luck storming the castle!