Public Opinion and Attitude toward the Military and Democratic Consolidation in Turkey

• Author: Zeki Sarigil
• DOI: 10.1177/0095327X13504573
• Published date: 01 April 2015
• Date: 01 April 2015
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article

Public Opinion and

Attitude toward the

Military and Democratic

Consolidation in Turkey

Zeki Sarigil

1

Abstract

The political influence of the Turkish military has substantially declined in the last

decade,triggered by the EuropeanUnion’s decision duringthe Helsinki Summit in 1999

to grant candidacy status to Turkey. This study illuminates Turkey’s democratization

process in the post-Helsinki period by empirically analyzing a relatively underinvesti-

gated aspect of civil–military relations: public opinionand attitude toward the military

and civil–military issues. Empiricalanalyses, based on originaland comprehensive public

opinion data, indicate that despite impressive reforms and improvements in the legal

and institutional structuresin Turkish civil–militaryrelations in the past ten years, dem-

ocratic transformation in the political culturehas been lagging behind. This gapis likely

to complicatedemocratizationprocess in Turkey. The articlealso provides a discussion

of broader theoretical and practicalimplications of empirical findings.

Keywords

public opinion, civil–military relations, Turkish military, political culture, democratic

consolidation

In the civil–military relations literature, we see the dominance of dichotomous

approaches, which assume a power relationship betweentwo sides: civil and military.

As a result, studieson civil–military relations focuson political and military elites and

1

Department of Political Science, Bilkent University, Bilkent, Ankara, Turkey

Corresponding Author:

Zeki Sarigil, Department of Political Science, Bilkent University, 06800 Bilkent, Ankara, Turkey.

Email: sarigil@bilkent.edu.tr

Armed Forces & Society

2015, Vol. 41(2) 282-306

ªThe Author(s) 2013

Reprints and permission:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0095327X13504573

afs.sagepub.com

their interactions. The civil–military dichotomy,however, lumps societywith political

elites on the civilian side vis-a`-vis the military and therefore ignores the autonomous

causal role played by the social realm.

1

As Schiff observes,

[t]he current civil-military relations literature does not consider the citizenry, but relies

instead on political institutions as the main ‘‘civil’’ component of analysis. Although

the relationship of civil institutions to the military is indeed important, it only partially

reflects the story of civil-military relations.

2

In contrast to the dichotomous approach, Schiff proposes the ‘‘concordance the-

ory,’’ which treats the citizenry as a third and important partner in civil–military

relations, distinct from the military and political elites. Concordance theory simply

expects that if there is concordance or harmony among the three spheres (i.e., the

military, the political elite, and the citizenry) regarding the composition of the offi-

cer corps, political decision-making processes, recruitment methods, and military

style, then domestic military intervention will be less likely.

3

Inspired by that theory, this study focuses on the role of social and cultural factors

in civil–military relations. This subject deserves more consideration than it has been

given because public opinion and attitudes vis-a`-vis the military have direct conse-

quences for democratic control ofthe armed forces and therefore for democratic con-

solidation.As Huntington notes, ‘‘thestanding of the officer corps and its leaders with

public opinionand the attitudes of broad section or categoric groups in society toward

the military are key elements in determining military influence.’’

4

Huntington argues

that any change in the degreeof the prestige and popularity of the officer corps and its

leaders in society should have some direct impacton the military’s political influence

and therefore on the possibility of conflict between the military and civilian spheres.

5

In a similar fashion, other observers suggest that the popularity of the military might

create a favorableenvironment for an interventionistmilitary to involve itself in civil-

ian politics.

6

It is argued that a high levelof societal trust is likely to improvethe mili-

tary’s ability to legitimize its interventions.

7

Narli draws attention to the role of

societal and cultural factors in civil–military relations by arguing that the militarist

culture, which exalts ‘‘heroism, a senseof sub-ordination to the higher interests of the

country, and a readiness to sacrifice oneself when necessary,’’ is likely to facilitate

deference to the military.

8

If societal and cultural factors matter in civil–military relations, then the citizenry

deserves greater consideration in scholarly analyses of that relationship. This work

investigates factors and dynamics behind public opinion and attitude toward the

military in the Turkish context. For several reasons, Turkey emerges as an excellent

laboratory to conduct such research. First, presenting itself as the guardian of

Kemalist principles (particularly secularism and nationalism) and state and national

interests, the Turkish Armed Forces (TAF) has been frequently involved in civilian

politics through direct (i.e., 1960, 1971, 1980, and 1997 interventions) and indirect

(e.g., statements, briefings, private meetings) means and mechanisms.

9

However,

Sarigil 283