Is there 'Military Enmity' in Turkish Politics?

The Status of Ex-Soldiers in the American Midterm Elections

American midterm elections were held on November 8. Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives were elected. A total of 100 senators were elected to the Senate, while 435 representatives entered the House. The winner of the elections was the Democratic Party in the Senate and the Republicans in the House of Representatives. State governors were also elected.

Taking into account Senators, Members of the House and Governors, the number of veterans who participated in the American elections this year was 196. This number does not include those who ran in the primaries. If they are included, the total number of ex-servicemen who participated in the American electoral process is probably around a thousand candidates. 

Although the election results in some states have not yet been finalized, no surprises are expected to affect the outcome. In this context, when we look at the candidates with military background, 86 of these 196 candidates who participated in the elections are certain to enter the Congress (Senate + House of Representatives). After the final results of the elections are known, it is expected that a few more people may be added to this number. In addition, five of the 10 military-origin candidates who ran for governor managed to be elected.

There are currently 91 veterans in Congress. If the election results remain unchanged, the number of representatives and senators with military backgrounds who will eventually find a seat in Congress as of January 3, 2023 is expected to be 89 and 17, respectively. This is almost a 12% increase compared to the previous period. In this case, according to the results of the November 8, 2022 elections, 17% of the Senate and 20% of the House will be composed of military members.

This is the first time since the Vietnam War that the number of military personnel in Congress has increased so much. Behind this major change, it is shown that the number of Vietnam War veterans, who did not have a very favorable view of the US Army, has decreased in the general population due to old age and deaths, and at the same time, those born after the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001 have started to have a positive view of the soldiers again, and finally this new generation has started to vote in the elections in a way to prefer the old soldiers.

What is the situation in Turkey?

When we look at the political parties in Turkey in recent years, it will be seen that the number of military-origin deputies who have managed to enter the Turkish Grand National Assembly is much lower than it should be, considering the professions of those who are put forward as parliamentary candidates. If only the number of OYAK members is taken as a basis, when the 430,000 OYAK members and those who have canceled their membership are taken into consideration, we can talk about the existence of approximately 800,000 professional soldiers (retirees + veterans + active officers, non-commissioned officers and specialists). When we look at these people together with their families and close relatives, we can consider 4-5 times this number as 'voters'. Accordingly, we can estimate that out of the 63-64 million voters expected to participate in the 2023 elections, at least 3-4 million of them will be those who are 'favorably disposed' towards people with military background. Almost 1 person out of every 100,000 can enter the parliament. In this case, I think that the minimum number of deputies with a military background in the Grand National Assembly should be 8, ideally around 30-40.

After the 27th Parliamentary Elections, 123 deputies, who are lawyers by profession, entered the Parliament. Lawyers were followed by 100 self-employed people, 64 architects and engineers, 46 doctors and dentists. Then there were 45 business people, 33 academics, 33 public and private company managers, 24 educators, 24 politicians, 17 financial advisors, 10 journalists.... In our 600-seat parliament, only 2 deputies of military origin were able to enter. That is not even 1%, but 0.33%. 

I don't know how many parliamentary candidates with military backgrounds there were, but probably not more than a handful? So why don't our political parties nominate candidates with a military background? Or let's ask the question differently: Why do people with a military background in Turkey stay away from political parties and/or are advised to do so? Or not wanted at all? 

What could be the reasons for this problem?

Possible Reasons?

Could the July 15th Coup Attempt be the first justification? If this is the reason, why is only the military being looked at 'unfavorably'? Moreover, since criminal sanctions have been imposed on those who attempted the coup/those associated with the FETO, to what extent can it be right that other soldiers are 'kept away' from political institutions by 'othering' them in a way? Why are all ex-soldiers being politically blamed for this coup attempt? If not, why is such an atmosphere prevailing in our country? 

Perhaps some of you may object to this observation. However, I am looking at the numbers (unfortunately not the numbers!) because there are only 2 MPs with military background in the TBMM. Ms. Şirin Ünal and Mr. Mehmet Ali Çelebi. If there is a third MP with a military background, I don't know about it. If there is, I ask for his/her forgiveness.

Secondly, is there a problem in the civil-military relationship in Turkish society under the current circumstances? Undoubtedly, according to the civil-military relations in any country, the weight and role of the military in the state is determined by taking into account the specific conditions of that country. The Republic of Turkey was founded by a predominantly military cadre. In fact, anyone who was not a soldier by origin, but who was capable of holding a gun and commanding a unit was considered a 'soldier' at that time and fought without blinking an eye to make this land a homeland. Turkish history writes this. Our National Anthem says this... In the end, a national struggle for liberation was waged. In Turkey, until the 2000s, the number of deputies entering the Parliament was generally high. As of today, the relationship between the officers and non-commissioned officers, who are in charge of ensuring the military security of the nation they serve, and who have become professionals in their field, and their relationship with the political power and, in terms of our subject, finding a place for themselves in the Grand National Assembly, follows a problematic course. Is it conceivable that the Turkish nation does not entrust the members of the army, to whom it entrusts its security, with a seat in parliament?

Thirdly, could the discourse of 'military tutelage' that was once rampant in Turkey have an effect? Probably yes. Here, I do not intend to go into issues such as the September 12 Trial and the February 28 Trial, which are controversial even today. If the issue is the claim of military tutelage, who can claim the existence of such a thing today? Naturally, there have been periods when our soldiers, our army, raised by this nation, have seen themselves as the guarantors of the essence and permanent interests of the nation and have inevitably assumed the role of protector. We can easily state that this patronage role had repercussions such as 'creating a sphere of influence' or 'exerting influence' on the elected government. The literature on Turkish political history is already full of writings in this context. Undoubtedly, the military may have shown excessive sensitivity in matters involving their own domain. This is not only the case in Turkey, but almost all over the world, including the United States. Specific to Turkey, in the past, in the spirit of the time and/or zeitgeist, wrong practices and attitudes towards political institutions (including coups) may have been exhibited by the military. Countless examples of this kind can be listed. Even if all of these are true, is it necessary for soldiers, who are practicing a profession at least as valuable as a lawyer, who are raised as soldiers ready to die for their state and nation, and who have lived and are living a lifetime in this way, to end their lives when they retire? 

I don't want to distract from the issue by listing other justifications, because the essence of the issue is clear: There is an unspoken hostility towards soldiers in Turkish politics (including the government and the opposition)! Let's not call it enmity, there is a palpable 'exclusion' and 'marginalization' that really offends many former soldiers.

Conclusion

I think that it would be a classy move for our political parties, which are the subjects of the act of exclusion, to take a step, even if symbolically, to show that they do not exclude our ex-soldiers in the 2023 general elections, and I think that this is essentially necessary.

If our political parties say and sincerely believe that "There is no one among the ex-soldiers who is qualified and qualified to be an MP!", I have nothing to say to that. Appreciation is unquestionable!

If our political parties say, "We want to see former soldiers among us. We are not enemies of the soldiers! We are not excluding them." If they say so, then go for it, the 2023 elections are approaching. In the Grand National Assembly of Turkey, which hosts 600 deputies, for the sake of 2023, let's include 23 deputies of military origin, even if the number of lawyers is not as high as (100 + 23), to represent the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Republic of Turkey. By the way, I am only mentioning our lawyers here as an illustration. This illustration is also valid for other professionals whose profession is not military service. 

What do you say to this suggestion of mine, Dear General Presidents of our Political Parties? Are you willing to include 23 MPs with military backgrounds in your party groups and among your ranks in the upcoming general elections? How about a genuine embrace with former soldiers?