Several times in the 2nd half of the century, the military has ousted the elected government of Turkey, but has handed power back to the civilians after year or so. Why has it not dispensed with civilian government altogether and assured direct rule it

Authors Avatar
"Several times in the 2nd half of the century, the military has ousted the elected government of Turkey, but has handed power back to the civilians after year or so. Why has it not dispensed with civilian government altogether and assured direct rule itself?"

Several times in the 2nd half of the century, the military has ousted the elected government of Turkey, but has handed power back to the civilians after year or so. Why has it not dispensed with civilian government altogether and assured direct rule itself?

Although there has been a consensus on noticing the recurring interventions of the army in Turkish politics, there is still no general agreement as how this is to be explained: different types of selected explanations will be explored in order to demonstrate the complex relationship between the military, the civil society and the State. In short, the use of the army to establish state institutions was not only unique in its form (given the historical context in which this occurred and in comparison with neighbouring states) but also unique in its consequences: military officers have already interrupted the democratic process several times, as well as apply decisions for the long term and tried solving short-term crisis through the renewal of the Turkish platform and through alternative policies.

How can one explain the resurgence of military politics in Turkey during crises? What has changed and what withers away within this mechanism of coup d'etat? What does the military role reveal about the nature of the Turkish State? Is it really possible to observe a clear-cut distinction between military rule and civilian rule in Turkey's recent history?

This essay will first explore possible theories of military rule in order to provide a clear typology of different military rule and how the population can view these regimes' legitimacy. Before demonstrating how Turkey's armed forces lies in a crucial trinity, it will provide contextual explanations in order to highlight the fact that each coup can be understood separately. Finally, it will conclude by suggesting that there are also long term explanations that reveal political characteristics inherent to the Turkish process of State consolidation.

)Theoretical explanation : Huntington's typology of military regime

The post-colonial era for a state is a period of insecurity and vulnerability, this consequently explains why this specific type of state has been characterised as highly centralised and heavily equipped in terms of military potential. On the other hand the absence of military government is only due to the political talent of a civilian political leader, rather than anything else inherently conducive to military intervention (Clapham, 1985: 137): the three coup d'etat in Turkey therefore reveals therefore the weakness of the State, and especially its lack of political autonomy. It can be argued that the army always intervenes for political purposes (Hale,1993:304), This intervention takes place in reaction to a socio-economic crisis during which the State loses its "monopoly of violence" (Max Weber) and a power vacuum is created. Furthermore, the level of popular support of a coup d'etat (which increases its likeliness) lies in the values the army can promotes: honesty, nation unity, efficiency and a belief in discipline (Clapham, 1985:144).

The unsophisticated political system, the quasi-absence of political systems and the distrust felt for the political elite were the main triggering elements conducive to a coup, which Clapham also identifies. However, one can also argue that the recurrence of coup d'etat lies in the fact that the army uses these characteristics to build up its political influence and intervene in critical situations: the recurrence of coup d'etat can foreshadow future military interventions and can also reveal how the military builds its omnipresence in the processes of decision-making.

After consulting the three different types of military regime that emerge in 3rd world countries (Veto groups, Nation's Guardian and Breatkthrough coups) it seems that the guardian coup best encompasses the Turkish case for several reasons (Hale, 1993:307).
Join now!


It generally occurs in states in which the new urban middle class already enjoys unchallenged control: the RPP in a Turkey is a particular example because the first coup in 1960, for example, took place after the end of the one party rule (Clapham, 1985:144-146). Nonetheless, the army and the RPP accused the DP of maintaining a "tyranny of the majority" and of institutional mismanagement in order to justify the first coup, led by junior officers(Heper, 1991). This kind of coup doesnt generally aim at replacing a ruling class with another, or modify the whole political system through ...

This is a preview of the whole essay