Is the bureaucratic tutelage over?

All the political scientists and constitutional law specialists unanimously agree that after the 1960 coup in Turkey, a bureaucratic tutelage system was established in Turkey. The only difference among these people is not the nature of the matter, but whether they approve it or not. While those who argue for democracy and trust in our people find the tutelage system as unacceptable, others who claim that the society can be updated from one status to another via the state admit that the tutelage regime is legitimate for the following logic. The tutelage regime is successfully maintainable by conscious and educated societies and the Turkish society has not upgraded to this advanced level. Thus, the elite intellectual bureaucrats must prepare the society for democracy and until that time, the tutelage regime is required and a necessity in order to avoid the effects of an alleged damage to democratic politics.

Because it was not possible to maintain the bureaucratic tutelage in democracy with ease, the system started to limp with certain cracks during the transition into democracy after every coup. This was done for the sake of new interferences into the political system. The leading and apparent actor of the tutelage regime was the military bureaucracy and it"s the principal visible tool and symbol was the weight and place of the army in the MGK, or the board of national security, the constitutional organ which was formed after the 1960 coup.

This also gave a militaristic view to the system. Therefore, it was inevitable for Turkey to focus on the status of the army for its own demilitarization-democratization struggle. This did not have to do with the personality of the soldiers, but their status in the constitutional system or their view of it.

All democratic authorities fought against the military tutelage more or less. The most significant steps in this line were taken during the AK Party government. Aside from the mistakes of certain military bureaucrats that would be unpardonable in any given democracy, when compared with the 60s and 70s, Turkey"s vast diversification and transformation in terms of intellectual, economic, cultural and class aspects were also influential.

The greatest symbol of the bureaucratic tutelage, MGK, stopped its function for the army members to ask politicians to be accountable or to boss and stimulate them. Both the member composition and the seating plan of MGK have changed.

Military officials are no longer able to sit at the same table with their chiefs in equal terms and cannot gaze at them with an authoritarian look.

Another sign for the regression in the military tutelage manifests in the social medium. In the past, everyone who had an interest in social matters in this country would know the name of the Chief of General staff or commanders by heart. Fortunately, those days have passed. Today, if you ask ten people about them, the possibility that anyone of them would know even one commander"s name is close to zero.

I tested it myself. I don"t know any commander"s name. This is quite a healthy progress for democracy or in other words the "normalization" process.

Despite all this positive progress, there are still many things to do to regress the bureaucratic tutelage regime, because the tutelage regime has infiltrated into many fields, even though it is not noticeable to society, like the old MGK. To detect our level in the struggle with the tutelage regime, in my opinion, one of the most prominent fields that we should check is the frequently stressed "education".

The prevailing ideology on education and the rituals, symbols that are domineering between the education life and education institutions, are quite indicative of the features in a political system. Despite the achievement concerning the regression of the military tutelage as an institutionalized structure, the tutelage mentality is still mandating in education. Making progress in this field is unfortunately not easy. The government took a critical step by trying to removing the oath from primary schools. However, the decision was turned down by the Supreme Council. The oath is on the table, but no one is interested in the class order or the ideological content of the education in schools.

There are certain key positions of the tutelage in education for example: the board of education and discipline. Even the name is so unpleasant and anti-democratic. In a democratic country, based on what right, which state could attempt to discipline their child-citizens through education? Based on what right could the roles of the parents be stolen? Another key position is the national education council. Its final regulation was published in 1995. Of course, among the members were representatives from the Chief of the General Staff and the MGK general secretary. Fortunately, their regulation has been updated. Now both of the institutions are no longer able to participate as natural members. We also should consider this as an important step towards demilitarization.

Indeed, the bureaucratic tutelage has been regressed, but it"s not over. On one side, a new and more horrific bureaucratic tutelage attempt came to the scene compared to the older version. On the other side, the classical bureaucratic military mentality is not completely over. The tutelage stepped back only for now, lest the power balance turns against them.

In order to wipe out the bureaucratic tutelage irreversibly, all the democrats must be watchful and eager.