21/7/2016. Erdogan or tanks?
Turkish society found itself in this unflattering and tragic dilemma last Friday. Of course, the aggressive definitions used in the aforementioned proposal basically concern democratic societies. Without a doubt, it is too early to take a position with certainty on what exactly happened and to what extent and for what issue the Turkish people mobilized. The resistance against the military coup was hopefully about defending democracy in general, but it was probably aimed at supporting the current president of Turkey and everything that his party advocates and implements.
The first reaction of the Turkish president and the government of its neighbor focuses on the dismissal of officials, the state apparatus and the armed forces, who participated in the coup. In all likelihood, the vacated positions will be occupied by state officials and officers who prevented the fall of the government and are friendly to the AKP. A few twenty-four hours after the attempted overthrow, it is now obvious that Erdogan will exploit this event to expand his dominance in Turkey, starting from complete control of the state and continuing to the institutional hegemony of political and social life.
For the West, if this particular word can capture the interests, choices and divergences of the states that make up what we call the “Western world”, the desired outcome would be the political – perhaps even more – end of Erdogan, but also the failure of the coup. Ultimately, one of the two happened. The Turkish president, even before the failed coup, perceived and acted in politics as a pure manifestation of power. In his own reasoning, any form of cooperation and consent can only exist to the extent that others consent to his choices. In the field of foreign policy, things are clearly worse and those who think that the recent reversals with Russia and Israel are not just tactical moves will see this the next time he is overcome by yet another “crisis of grandeur”. The Turkish demand that the United States hand over – that is what it is about – Fethullah Gulen to Erdogan's attention demonstrates what will follow in the near future.
The events of last Friday in Turkey constitute yet another success for the Turkish politician and his now-regime party. Continuous successes activate psycho-spiritual processes in people that constantly and absolutely confirm the correctness of their choices, minimizing any hesitations and second thoughts, excluding any room for compromise. Democracy in the neighboring country is in a process of curtailment. All those who thought that with the failure of the coup, democracy was saved in Turkey, would be wiser to wait for what will follow. The citizens who lined up in front of the armored vehicles may have done so because of their democratic beliefs, perhaps not only, nor mainly because of this. There are undoubtedly Turkish citizens who support democracy, the rule of law, and a pro-Western course for the country, who must find a way to express themselves differently, being a minority in the country.
For Greece, in the first phase, it has to deal with the lack of detail in the extradition of the eight Turkish armed forces officers, who are accused of participating in the coup. Already, before the legal process of the matter had even begun, we were faced with the inelegant statement of the Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu, who prejudged the decision of the Greek judiciary. No one can say with certainty whether the res gesta of the past weekend constitute the swan song of Kemalism in Turkey, but certainly one of its pillars, the armed forces, was brutally attacked. The, at first glance, convenient conclusion of the coup does not solve the problem of Turkish hegemony for our country. The event that could potentially tip the balance in Greece's favor is the continuation of Turkey's anti-Western turn and the deterioration of Turkish-American relations. But even in this case, we must operate in a way that, at least for the last two decades, has been outside our dominant strategic perceptions and choices.
Republished from New Politics
