SavedAdd your journal

Journals / İnsan ve İnsan / 2019 / Cilt: 6 Sayı: 22

Civil-Military Relations in Turkish Democracy in the Period leading to the July 15th

15 Temmuz’a Giden Süreçte Türk Demokrasisinde Sivil Asker İlişkileri

Önder Aytaç Afşar(NECMETTİN ERBAKAN ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0003-1394-3975
Pages
737–766
Publication Date
2019-10-31
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

This study mainly examines the structure of civil-military relations in Turkey with the concepts of civil-military contestation and military prerogatives.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Preventing the institutionalization of democracy in Turkey, the main problem is the privilege of the military in the political system.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Periodic military interventions and the increased political autonomy of the military with each intervention have taken armed forces and their activities away from the point of democratic civilian control.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:This study mainly examines the structure of civil-military relations in Turkey with the concepts of civil-military contestation and military prerogatives.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Demokrasi · Sivil-asker ilişkileri · Askeri imtiyaz

Abstract

Preventing the institutionalization of democracy in Turkey, the main problem is the privilege of the military in the political system. Turkish Armed Forces (TAF) has intervened in civilian politics many times with the idea that it has a mission to protect the regime, and after each intervention, it has determined the conditions for transition to democracy while transferring power to civilians. After the coups, with the privileges obtained the military strengthened in the political system. With the legal arrangements, TAF has legitimized its political power by placing it on the legal ground. Periodic military interventions and the increased political autonomy of the military with each intervention have taken armed forces and their activities away from the point of democratic civilian control. Although significant reforms have been made in the EU process, the July 15 incident has shown that the issue of civilian military relations is still important in Turkey and military coups still threaten the country. It is important for the democracy that the armed forces depend on the elected civil authority and are subject to civilian oversight. The issue is remarkable in this respect. This study mainly examines the structure of civil-military relations in Turkey with the concepts of civil-military contestation and military prerogatives.

Özet

Türkiye’de demokrasinin kurumsallaşmasına engel olan temel sorun, askerin siyasal

🔖

Cite This Article

Afşar, Ö. A. (2019). Civil-Military Relations in Turkish Democracy in the Period leading to the July 15th. İnsan ve İnsan, Cilt: 6 Sayı: 22, 737–766. https://doi.org/10.29224/insanveinsan.572340

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (48)

  1. Afşar, Önder A. “Rasyonel Kurumsalcılık ve Sosyolojik Kurumsalcılık Açısından Avrupalılaşma Yaklaşımı”, Sosyal Ekonomik Araştırmalar Dergisi. 30. Yıl Özel Sayısı (2017): 65-80.
  2. Ahmad, Feroz. Bir Kimlik Peşinde Türkiye. Çev., Sedat Cem Karadeli. İstanbul: Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları, 2008.
  3. “Ahmet Zeki Üçok: TSK içerisinde halen en güçlü grup FETÖ’dür”, Cumhuriyet. (17.08.2017).erişim 05 Haziran, 2019, http://www.cumhuriyet.com.tr/haber/ turkiye/800780/Ahmet_Zeki_Ucok__TSK_icerisinde_halen_en_guclu_grup_ FETO_dur.html.
  4. Akay, Hale. “Demokratik Gözetim: Kurumsal Değerlendirme”.Almanak Türkiye 2006-2008 Güvenlik Sektörü ve Demokratik Gözetim. Der., Ali Bayramoğlu ve Ahmet İnsel. İstanbul: TESEV Yayınları, 2009.
  5. Aknur, Müge. “Civil Military Relations During the AK Party Era: Major Developments and Challenges”. Insight Turkey. 15/4 (2013):131-150.
  6. Alfred, Stepan. Rethinking Military Politics: Brazil and the Southern Cone. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1988.
  7. Altınay, Ayşegül. “Askerlik Vazifesinden Milli Güvenlik Bilgisine: Askerlik ve Eğitim”. Birikim. 125/126 (1999): 200-208.
  8. Aras, Bülent. “15 Temmuz Sonrası Türkiye’de Devlet Kurumlar ve Reform”. http:// ipc.sabanciuniv.edu/wpcontent/uploads/2017/03/15-Temmuz-sonras%C4%B1- Turkiyede-devletkurumlar-ve-reform_Bulent-Aras.pdf (erişim 03.05.2017)
  9. Atatürk’ün Söylev ve Demeçleri 1. Ankara: Türk İnkılap Tarihi Enstitüsü Yayınları, 1961.
  10. Aydınlı, Ersel, Ali Nihat Özcan and Doğan Akyaz. “The Turkish Military’s March Toward Europe”. Foreign Affairs. 85/1 (2006): 77-90.
  11. Cizre, Ümit. “The Anatomy of the Turkish Military‘s Political Autonomy”. Comparative Politics. 29/2 (1997): 151-166.
  12. Cizre, Ümit. “Egemen İdeoloji ve Türk Silahlı Kuvvetleri: Kavramsal ve İlişkisel Bir Analiz”. Bir Zümre, Bir Parti Türkiye’de Ordu. Der., Ahmet İnsel ve Ali Bayramoğlu. İstanbul: Birikim Yayınları, 2004.
  13. Cizre, Ümit. Muktedirlerin Siyaseti: Merkez-Sağ-Ordu-İslamcılık. Çev., Cahide Ekiz. İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 1999.
  14. Cook, Stevan. Yönetmeden Hükmeden Ordular: Türkiye Mısır Cezayir. Çev., Bahar Şahin. İstanbul: Hayykitap, 2007.
  15. Croissant, Aurel, David Kuehn, Paul Chambers ve Siegfried O. Wolf. “Beyond the Fallacy of Coup-ism: Conceptualizing Civilian Control of the Military in Emerging Democracies”. Democratization. 17/5 (2010): 950-975.
  16. Darbeler.com. “Postmodern Darbe: 28 Şubat”. Son güncelleme 11 Mayıs 2018.http:// darbeler.com/2015/05/18/postmodern-darbe-28-subat/.
  17. Demirel, Tanel. “The Turkish Military’s Decision to Intervene: 12 September 1980”. Armed Forces and Society. 29/2 (2003): 253-280.
  18. Demirel, Tanel. Türkiye’nin Uzun On Yılı: Demokrat Parti İktidarı ve 27 Mayıs Darbesi. İstanbul: Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları, 2011.
  19. Diamond, Larry. “Introduction: In Search of Consolidation”, Consolidating The Third Wave Democracies. Ed., Larry Diamond, Marc Plattner, Yun-han Chu ve HungmaoTien. Baltimore ve London: The John Hopkins University Press, 1997.
  20. Gevgilili, Ali. Yükseliş ve Düşüş.İstanbul: Bağlam Yayınları, 1987.
  21. Güney, Aylin ve Petek Karatekelioglu. “Turkey’s EU Candidacy and Civil-Military Relations: Challenges and Prospects”.Armed Forces and Society. 31/3 (2005): 441-443.
  22. Gürsoy, Yaprak. “The Changing Role of the Military in Turkish Politics: Democratization through Coup Plots?”. Democratization. 19/4 (2012): 735-760.
  23. Gürsoy, Yaprak. “The Impact of EU-Driven Reforms on the Political Autonomy of the Turkish Military”.South European Society and Politics. 16/2 (2011): 293-308.
  24. Hale, William. Türkiye’de Ordu ve Siyaset. Çev., Ahmet Fethi. İstanbul: Hil Yayınları, 1996.
  25. Hanioğlu, Şükrü. Ataturk: An Intellectual Biography. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2011.
  26. Harris, George. “The Role of the Military in Turkey in the 1980’s”. State, Democracy and the Military in Turkey in the 1980s.Ed., Metin Heper ve Ahmet Evin. Berlin ve New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1988.
  27. Heper,Metin. “Civil Military Relations in Turkey: Toward a Liberal Model”, Turkish Studies. 12/2 (2011): 241-252.
  28. Heper, Metin ve Aylin Guney. “The Military and The Consolidation of Democracy: The Recent Turkish Experience”. Armed Forces and Society. 26/4 (2000): 635–657.
  29. Heper, Metin. “The Strong State as a Problem forthe Consolidation of Democracy”. Comparative Political Studies. 25/2 (1992):169-194.
  30. Huntington, Samuel. Üçüncü Dalga: Geç Yirminci Yüzyılda Demokratikleşme. Çev., Ergun Özbudun. Ankara: Türk Demokrasi Vakfı Yayınları, 1991.
  31. Im, Hyug Baeg. “South Korean Democratic Consolidation in Comparative Perspective”. Consolidation of Democracy in South Korea. Ed., Larry Diamond ve Byung-Kook Kim. Boulder: L. Rienner, 2000.
  32. Jenkins, Gareth.Contex and Circumtances: The Turkish Military and Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.
  33. Kahraman, Hasan Bülent. Türk Siyasetinin Yapısal Analizi-1 Kavramlar, Kuramlar Kurumlar. İstanbul: Agora Kitaplığı, 2010.
  34. Karpat, Kemal H. Osmanlıdan Günümüze Asker ve Siyaset. İstanbul: Timaş Yayınları, 2010.
  35. Narlı, Nilüfer. “Civil-Military Relations in Turkey”. Turkish Studies. 1/1 (2000): 107- 127.
  36. Örs, Birsen. Türkiye’de Askeri Müdahaleler: Bir Açıklama Modeli. İstanbul: Der Yayınevi, 1996.
  37. Özbudun, Ergun ve Serap Yazıcı. “Military Regimes’ ExtricationFrom Politics: Exit Guarantees”. Nation Power Society. Ed., Alexandra Jasinski Konia ve Jacek Raciborski. Warszawa: Scholar, 1996.
  38. Özbudun, Ergun. Çağdaş Türk Politikası: Demokratik Pekişmenin Önündeki Engeller. İstanbul: Doğan Kitap, 2003.
  39. Özdemir, Hikmet. Türkiye Cumhuriyeti. İstanbul: İz Yayıncılık, 1995.
  40. Perlmutter, Amos. The Military and Politics in Modern Times: On Professionals, Praetorians, and Revolutionary Soldiers. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1977.
  41. Pion-Berlin, David. “Military Autonomy and Emerging Democracies in South America”.Comparative Politics. 25/1 (1992): 83–103.
  42. Resmî Gazete, “Olağanüstü Hal Kapsamında Bazı Tedbirler Alınması ve Milli Savunma Üniversitesi Kurulması ile Bazı Kanunlarda Değişiklik Yapılmasına Dair Kanun Hükmünde Kararname: KHK 669” 31 Temmuz 2016. Erişim 11 Mayıs 2019. http://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2016/07/20160731-5.htm.
  43. Rustow, A. Dankwart. The Army and the Founding of the Turkish Republic, World Politics.11/4 (1959): 513-552.
  44. Sarıgil, Zeki. “The Turkish Military: Principal or Agent?”Armed Forces and Society. 40/1 (2012): 168–190.
  45. Savran, Sungur. “1960, 1971, 1980:Toplumsal Mücadeleler, Askeri Müdahaleler”. 11. Tez Kitap Dizisi: 6. İstanbul: Uluslararası Yayıncılık, 1987.
  46. Serra, Narcis. Demokratikleşme Sürecinde Ordu, Silahlı Kuvvetlerin Demokratik Reformu Üzerine Düşünceler. Çev., Şahika Tokel. İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 2011.
  47. Şen, Serdar. Cumhuriyet Kültürünün Oluşum Sürecinde Bir İdeolojik Aygıt Olarak Silahlı Kuvvetler ve Modernizm. İstanbul: Sarmal Yayınevi, 1996.
  48. Tachau, Frank ve Metin Heper. “The State, Politics, and the Military in Turkey”. Comparative Politics. 16/1 (1983): 17-33.