Journals / Uluslararası İlişkiler Dergisi / 2017 / Cilt: 14 - Sayı: 55

An Analysis of Two Different Models of Civil-Military Relations: The Case of Turkey

İki Farklı Sivil-Asker İlişkileri Modelinin Analizi: Türkiye Örneği

Pages
41–57
Publication Date
2017-09-01
DOI
—
🏛️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)

However, the concordance model has some methodological weaknesses, requiring modification in order to properly analyze the case of Turkey.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This article analyzes Turkish civil-military relations with the help of two different models of civil-military relations (separation and concordance) in order to bring a new perspective to the analysis of civil-military relations.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The article begins with a short review of the theoretical framework of the separation and concordance models, followed by a brief history of four military interventions that occurred in Turkey in 1960, 1971, 1980, and 1997.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:However, the concordance model has some methodological weaknesses, requiring modification in order to properly analyze the case of Turkey.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Sivil-Asker İlişkileri · Askeri Vesayet · Ayırma Modeli

Abstract

This article analyzes Turkish civil-military relations with the help of two different models of civil-military relations (separation and concordance) in order to bring a new perspective to the analysis of civil-military relations. The article begins with a short review of the theoretical framework of the separation and concordance models, followed by a brief history of four military interventions that occurred in Turkey in 1960, 1971, 1980, and 1997. The article will then analyze Turkish civil-military relations through the separation and concordance models in an attempt to decide which model would be more appropriate to explain the Turkish case. It reaches the conclusion that the concordance model is more appropriate than the separation model to serve that purpose. However, the concordance model has some methodological weaknesses, requiring modification in order to properly analyze the case of Turkey.

Özet

Bu çalışma, Türk sivil-asker ilişkilerini iki farklı modelin (ayırma modeli ve mutabakat modeli) yardımıyla incelemeyi ve bu suretle sivil-asker ilişkileri analizine yeni bir perspektif kazandırmayı amaçlamıştır. İlk önce, ayırma ve mutabakat modellerinin kısaca gözden geçirildiği bir teorik çerçeveye yer verilmiştir. İkinci olarak, Türkiye’deki belli başlı dört askeri müdahalenin (1960, 1971, 1980 ve 1997) kısa bir özetinin yer aldığı tarihçe bölümü sunulmuştur. Sonrasında da, Türk sivil-asker ilişkileri, ayırma ve mutabakat modelleri yardımıyla analiz edilmiş ve hangi modelin Türkiye örneğine daha uygun olduğu tartışılmıştır. Yapılan analizde, mutabakat modelinin Türkiye’deki sivil-asker ilişkilerini açıklamak için daha uygun olduğu, ancak Türkiye örneği dikkate alındığında, bazı metodolojik zayıflıklara sahip olduğu ve tadil edilmesi gerektiği sonucuna ulaşılmıştır.

🔖

Cite This Article

ULUÇAKAR, M., ÇAĞLAR, A. (2017). An Analysis of Two Different Models of Civil-Military Relations: The Case of Turkey. Uluslararası İlişkiler Dergisi, Cilt: 14 - Sayı: 55, 41–57. https://ajindex.com/articles/80188

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (17)

  1. Ahmad, Feroz. The Making of Modern Turkey, London and New York, Routledge, 1993.
  2. Andersen, John M. Civil–Military Relations and Concordance Theory: A Case Study of Argentina, MA Thesis, Naval Post Graduate School, Monterey, USA, 1998.
  3. Arı, Leman Başak. Civil-Military Relations in Turkey, Published MA thesis, Department of Political Science Texas State University, https://digital.library.txstate.edu/bit stream/handle/10877/3517/fulltext.pdf, (Accessed on 01 November 2016).
  4. Aydınlı, Ersel. “A Paradigmatic Shift for the Turkish General and an End to the Coup Era in Turkey”, The Middle East Journal, Vol.63, No.4, 2009, p.581-596.
  5. Altınay, G. Ayşe. The Myth of Military-Nation, New York, Palgrave Macmillan, 2004, p.87-89.
  6. Burak, Begüm. “To Guard Whom and from What?”, European Journal of Economic and Political Studies, Vol.4, No.1, 2011, p.153. Burak, Begüm. “Osmanlı'dan Günümüze Ordu-Siyaset İlişkileri”, History Studies, Vol.3, No.1, 2011, p.45-57.
  7. Cerulo, A. Karen. “Symbols and the World System: National Anthems and Flags”, Sociological Forum, Vol.8, No.2, 1993, p.243-271.
  8. Demirel, Tanel. “Soldiers and Civilians: The Dilemma of Turkish Democracy”, Middle Eastern Studies, Vol.40, No.1, 2004, p.127-150.
  9. Hale, William. Turkish Politics and the Military, London, New York, Routledge, 1994.
  10. Halistoprak, T. Burak. Construction of Civil-Military Relations in Turkey, Unpublished MA Thesis, Department of International Relations Bilkent University, 2011.
  11. Hanioglu, Sükrü M. Atatürk: An Intellectual Biography, New Jersey, Princeton University Press, 2012.
  12. Huntington, Samuel P. Political Order in Changing Societies, New Haven and London, Yale University Press, 1978.
  13. Huntington, Samuel P. Asker ve Devlet, Ankara, Türk Demokrasi Vakfı Yayınları, 1993.
  14. Huntington, Samuel P. The Soldier and the State: The Theory and Politics of Civil-Military Relations, Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1994.
  15. Huntington, Samuel P. “Reforming Civil–Military Relations”, Larry Diamond & Marc F. Plattner (Eds.), Civil–Military Relations and Democracy, Baltimore and London, The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996.
  16. Karabelias, Gerassimos. Civil–Military Relations: A Comparative Analysis of the Role of the Military in the Political Transformation of Post-War Turkey and Greece: 1980-1995, Report to NATO, 1998, http://www.nato.int/acad /fellow /96-98/ karabeli.pdf, (Accessed on 01 November 2016).
  17. Meyer, Kestnbaum. “Citizenship and Compulsory Military Service: The Revolutionary Origins of conscription