BY ETYEN MAHCUPYAN
ZAMAN- Columnist Etyen Mahcupyan writes about a longstanding rift between Turkey’s politicians and its bureaucratic class, with the military foremost among the latter. A summary of his column is as follows:
Back in the time of monarchs and dictators, things used to work much more harmoniously… The legitimacy-generating ideological discourse and political power were unified and embodied in a single and identical subject, and the identities of the politician and the bureaucrat were crystallized in a single man.
Then came modern times, and the politician and bureaucrat’s paths parted. It was now the politician who legitimately enjoyed the political discourse and power. In Turkey, however, the authoritarian administrative mentality, based on the priority and leadership of the bureaucratic class, has lingered. But at the same time, the nation has strived to be ‘modern.’ Thus, a system has emerged where politicians seemed to be dominant but in reality it was the bureaucratic class which ruled the country. The politicians, who were answerable to the people but lacked the authority, have been criticized, imprisoned and even taken to the gallows. And the bureaucrats, who had the authority but were in no way answerable to the people, have preferred to stay behind the scenes.
Yet, this differentiation between the politician and bureaucrat has torn away the discourse/subject connection, a vital connection which constituted the backbone of the political order. The loss of the politician/bureaucrat totality, which was unified in the emperor himself during Ottoman times, and which played a key role in the institutionalization of politics in the modern Western world, has become the core issue of politics in pseudo-democratic countries like Turkey. Although the bureaucratic class persisted in being the real subject of politics and dominated it through such means as the National Security Council (MGK) as well as military memoranda and coups, it has lost the ability to have the final say in politics any time and anywhere it wanted. Thus a crisis emerged between elected politicians and the appointed bureaucrats, which jeopardized the democratic order itself.
In order to overcome this crisis, the bureaucratic class has moved to seek a diversification on both the discourse and subject levels, and it has made the official state ideology, Kemalism, untouchable. Once we had before us many ‘voices’ and many ‘actors,’ but in the end they were all embedded in Kemalism and thus came to dominate the bureaucratic sphere of politics. On the discourse level, the president and influential media, and on the subject level the military and judiciary, for example, are all facets of the same game. However, the authoritarian seal makes this diversification inauthentic. In reality, the institutionalized political discourse and power in Turkey are completely placed within a hierarchical structure.
This makes the military an unchallengeable point of reference. Yet it also has to be above and beyond politics, as if it is mute about the subject. Though the military never speaks, everything should be the way it wants. -- But life is not that simple. So the military needs a special language through which it should be perceived as mute but at the same time should mean a lot. That’s why we hear clichés in military statements like ‘… no one should doubt that we are determined to struggle against …’ The military is using a meta-narrative which repeats itself, conveying the message that the military is ‘above’ any political discourse, and which has a ‘religious’ overtone. And through this very meta-narrative, the military is deemed sacred at the top of the political subject’s hierarchy. It is regarded as ‘above and beyond’ politics even if it manipulates politics’ each and every dimension. In reality, the military is haunting politics, making it impossible and even meaningless. And Kemalism is the very ideology which ‘legitimizes’ this system.
SOURCE: OFFICE OF THE PRIME MINISTER, DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF PRESS AND INFORMATION