No abstract

No abstract

In democratic regimes, military subordination to civilian rule is a vital requirement. The civil-military relations (CMR) field of political science has been created to achieve and maintain that purpose. Yet the question of what military professionalism is still does not have a universally accepted answer. After Samuel Huntington published his highly inspirational landmark work The Soldier and the State (Huntington, 1957), CMR scholars started heated debates to create a certain and comprehensive theory of professionalism that would be eligible for all case studies, but none of these attempts has been completely successful. In his influential theory, Huntington (1957) defined military professionalism as a moral code which would prevent officers from pursuing political interests and oblige them to obey civilian rule (p. 158). That approach has been a criterion and a so-called goal for the Western militaries to reach since the Cold War. Having said that, in several cases, professionalism could not deter militaries from praetorian acts (Huntington, 1957, pp. 60-61). Hence, this paper will make a general analysis of military professionalism in the CMR literature. While doing this analysis, the paper will look for the answers to certain questions. What is the relationship between military culture and military professionalism? What are the normative and technical dimensions of military professionalism?

The founder of Turkey Mustafa Kemal Atatürk has a unique place for the Turkish military culture. However, this commitment has mostly remained symbolic and the military has acted highly different to what Atatürk had desired. Following his death in 1938, the military claimed a guardianship duty to preserve Atatürk's “secular” republic. They implemented periodic interventions against democratically elected governments. Yet indeed, Atatürk had been known with his critical stance against military interventions. He had frequently emphasized the importance of civilian supremacy. Indeed, with these periodic interventions, there emerged a “paradox” between the military implementations and Atatürk's ideas. To elaborate this “paradox,” this paper will compare Atatürk's opinions with military implementations. To do this, the paper will firstly analyze Atatürk's ideas about war, soldiering and civil‐military relations. Secondly, the paper will define the relationship between military culture and Kemalism. Lastly, the paper will make a general evaluation of Turkish civil‐military relations.

Turkish civil-military relations (CMR) have fluctuated significantly during Adalet ve Kalkınma (Justice and Development) Party (AK Party) rule. In their first term (2002-2007), the AK Party successfully implemented a reform package to subordinate the military to civilians in line with the European Union progress reports. Nevertheless, starting in their second term, extraordinary events again led the authorities to reconsider Turkey's long-standing legacy of military politicisation. First, a website memorandum, which was carried out by the military authorities, led to the emergence of strict public protests; second, in the so-called Ergenekon investigations, some generals were accused of trying to oust the government; and lastly, the Fetullah Gülen organisation, which penetrated the military, attempted a coup d'état. All these recent developments caused CMR experts to reconsider the CMR in Turkey. As a result of those events, the institutional formation of Turkish CMR was completely changed via the declaration of state of emergency rules (Olağanüstü Hal [OHAL] rules). As such, the research question of this paper addresses the future of the Turkish army's combat efficiency by taking into account the aforementioned changes. By considering the relevant literature and interviews conducted for this purpose, I aim to provide a coherent answer to this question. First, the article will discuss what kinds of event CMR have undergone during the AK Party era. Second, after analysing the Ergenekon investigations and 15 July coup attempt, the article will consider the OHAL rules. Each decision will be analysed from a different perspective to discuss how they are affecting the military's combat prowess.