Tweet
Today's Zaman, Turkey
Feb 1 2007
Attaching the deep state to the normal state
The police investigation into the murder of Hrant Dink has
re-launched the debate on the deep state. Turkish Prime Minister
Recep Tayyip Erdoðan told Ýskele Sancak on Kanal 7: ` It's not true
that I don't agree with the definition of the deep state. Why would
it not exist? It goes back to Ottoman times. It is something that
comes with the tradition. It is important to minimize, or if
possible, annihilate it.'
Three days later, the prime minister elaborated on the issue at hand
when he was responding to questions from journalists on his flight to
Ethiopia: `We could as well refer to the deep state as the formation
of gangs within institutions. Failure to look into these connections
to date has cost both the government and the nation. Law enforcement
can only help us to a degree. A combination of law enforcement,
legislation and justice is necessary to look into those connections.'
What is the deep state? There are two people whose response to this
question is very direct. One of them is Kenan Evren, Turkey's seventh
president. The other one is Süleyman Demirel, Turkey's ninth
president.
This is what Mr. Evren said in a March 30, 2005 interview with Sabah:
`When the state fails to perform its duties properly, the deep state
interferes, and did indeed interfere. Nobody said, `My Lord, don't
interfere.' On the contrary, they said, `Do interfere, seize
control'.'
This is what Mr. Demirel said on CNN Türk, broadcast on April 17,
2005: `The deep state is the military. Though the military is not a
separate state, it becomes the deep state when it seizes government
control. The need arises for the deep state when the government fails
to perform its tasks.' Around this time, Mr. Demirel was also
interviewed by Yavuz Donat:
`The deep state is a condition in which the normal state goes off the
rails. The founders of the republic were engrossed with the fear that
the state might fall apart, just as it happened with the Ottoman
Empire. At the root of the deep state lies this fear: The state is
falling apart, so we should save it from demise. ... This is what it
is.'
Actually the issue is related both to the culture of democracy and
the assimilation of democracy. Loving the nation cannot be a quality
that belongs exclusively to the military. The basic thing should be
to save and to improve the state with adherence to the rule of law.
Can it be a solution to discontinue democracy every once in a while
on the pretext that the government is not doing its job well in
Turkey when in fact democracy could have been improved?
It becomes all the more difficult to work reasonably as long as
politicians expect to gain future political prosperity from a
possible military intervention and regard themselves as members of
the staff of the deep state. The reasonable thing is this: Whether or
not Turkey enters the EU, democratization based on the rule of law
will strengthen Turkey. We show respect to our country by working
hard to keep alive universal humanitarian values, the freedom of
thought, expression and religion. Jurisdiction should apply to
everybody, and everybody should be accountable for what they have
done. For this to happen, state and constitutional organizations need
to work in harmony.
The most important criticism that we are facing on our way to the EU
relates to the military's custodial role of Turkey's democracy. It is
not possible to solve any problems in the nation when the advocates
of the above argument are called `traitors.' If it were, former
military interventions would have worked out well.
As long as civil power is seen as illegal, as long as the elected are
not taken seriously and as long as there is constant concession to
democracy, Turkey will remain poorly governed. The military is the
flower of the nation, so efforts must be made to find a solution
without destroying trust in it. Nobody will benefit from sheer
obstinacy or trust in one's own fists. Today, real nationalism means
attaching the deep state to the normal state and preserving
democracy.
Feb 1 2007
Attaching the deep state to the normal state
The police investigation into the murder of Hrant Dink has
re-launched the debate on the deep state. Turkish Prime Minister
Recep Tayyip Erdoðan told Ýskele Sancak on Kanal 7: ` It's not true
that I don't agree with the definition of the deep state. Why would
it not exist? It goes back to Ottoman times. It is something that
comes with the tradition. It is important to minimize, or if
possible, annihilate it.'
Three days later, the prime minister elaborated on the issue at hand
when he was responding to questions from journalists on his flight to
Ethiopia: `We could as well refer to the deep state as the formation
of gangs within institutions. Failure to look into these connections
to date has cost both the government and the nation. Law enforcement
can only help us to a degree. A combination of law enforcement,
legislation and justice is necessary to look into those connections.'
What is the deep state? There are two people whose response to this
question is very direct. One of them is Kenan Evren, Turkey's seventh
president. The other one is Süleyman Demirel, Turkey's ninth
president.
This is what Mr. Evren said in a March 30, 2005 interview with Sabah:
`When the state fails to perform its duties properly, the deep state
interferes, and did indeed interfere. Nobody said, `My Lord, don't
interfere.' On the contrary, they said, `Do interfere, seize
control'.'
This is what Mr. Demirel said on CNN Türk, broadcast on April 17,
2005: `The deep state is the military. Though the military is not a
separate state, it becomes the deep state when it seizes government
control. The need arises for the deep state when the government fails
to perform its tasks.' Around this time, Mr. Demirel was also
interviewed by Yavuz Donat:
`The deep state is a condition in which the normal state goes off the
rails. The founders of the republic were engrossed with the fear that
the state might fall apart, just as it happened with the Ottoman
Empire. At the root of the deep state lies this fear: The state is
falling apart, so we should save it from demise. ... This is what it
is.'
Actually the issue is related both to the culture of democracy and
the assimilation of democracy. Loving the nation cannot be a quality
that belongs exclusively to the military. The basic thing should be
to save and to improve the state with adherence to the rule of law.
Can it be a solution to discontinue democracy every once in a while
on the pretext that the government is not doing its job well in
Turkey when in fact democracy could have been improved?
It becomes all the more difficult to work reasonably as long as
politicians expect to gain future political prosperity from a
possible military intervention and regard themselves as members of
the staff of the deep state. The reasonable thing is this: Whether or
not Turkey enters the EU, democratization based on the rule of law
will strengthen Turkey. We show respect to our country by working
hard to keep alive universal humanitarian values, the freedom of
thought, expression and religion. Jurisdiction should apply to
everybody, and everybody should be accountable for what they have
done. For this to happen, state and constitutional organizations need
to work in harmony.
The most important criticism that we are facing on our way to the EU
relates to the military's custodial role of Turkey's democracy. It is
not possible to solve any problems in the nation when the advocates
of the above argument are called `traitors.' If it were, former
military interventions would have worked out well.
As long as civil power is seen as illegal, as long as the elected are
not taken seriously and as long as there is constant concession to
democracy, Turkey will remain poorly governed. The military is the
flower of the nation, so efforts must be made to find a solution
without destroying trust in it. Nobody will benefit from sheer
obstinacy or trust in one's own fists. Today, real nationalism means
attaching the deep state to the normal state and preserving
democracy.