THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS OF CIVIL-MILITARY RELATIONS AND THE CASE OF THE 1960 COUP IN TURKIYE

Olkan Senemoğlu; Şeyda Bükrücü Kazkondu

Makale detayları

THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS OF CIVIL-MILITARY RELATIONS AND THE CASE OF THE 1960 COUP IN TURKIYE

Yazarlar:

Olkan Senemoğlu | Şeyda Bükrücü Kazkondu

Yayıncı:

Ayla KAŞOĞLU

Ana Başlıklar:

Türk Siyasal Hayatı

Dergi:

Avrasya Uluslararası Araştırmalar Dergisi Vol.13 Issue 44, pp.171-201

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

8/2025

Belge Dili:

İngilizce

Document ID (Org No.):

2001358114

pISSN:

2147-2610

Anahtar kelimeler:

Özet:

 This study examines the historically and structurally multilayered nature of civil-military relations in Turkey through a theoretical analysis centered on the May 27, 1960 military coup. Five major theories that stand out in the literatüre -Huntingtons Institutional Distinction Theory, Janowitzs Professional Soldier Theory, Schiffs Concordance Theory, Feavers Agency Theory, and Blands Shared Responsibility Theory- are first analyzed theoretically, and then their explanatory capacity in the Turkish context is evaluated. Each theory analyzes civil-military relations through a distinct conceptual framework based on the legitimacy of political authority, military loyalty, institutional control mechanisms, and culturalsocial cohesion. However, in a country like Turkeywhere the military bureaucracy has played not only a technical but also an ideological role, where modernization occurred late, and where secularization was implemented top-downthese theories fall short of providing comprehensive explanations. This limitation stems from the fact that most of these theories are built upon the conditions of consolidated Western democracies. The article critically discusses how these theories function in explaining developments in the Turkish context by examining the practices of the Democrat Party DP government prior to the 1960 coup, unrest within the military, and the deepening of societal polarization. Feavers concepts of shirking and monitoring are employed to explain events ranging from the coup proposal made to İnönü to the DPs mechanisms of military oversight. Schiffs emphasis on institutional concordance is used to illustrate how the consensus among the military, civilian elites, and the public was gradually undermined. Janowitzs focus on civil-societal integration sheds light on the sociological dynamics behind the militarys perception of the DPs religiously oriented policies as a threat. By demonstrating the inadequacies of these theoretical frameworks in the Turkish case, the study argues that understanding civil-military relations requires not only a focus on institutional arrangements and legal frameworks but also attention to historical identities, ideological cleavages, and the cultural codes through which society perceives military actors. The study concludes that establishing sustainable and democratic civil-military relations in Turkey depends not only on constitutional arrangements, but also on building institutional trust, fostering a sense of mutual responsibility, and legitimizing military reforms in the eyes of the publicall of which require a multidimensional approach.

 This study examines the historically and structurally multilayered nature of civil-military relations in Turkey through a theoretical analysis centered on the May 27, 1960 military coup. Five major theories that stand out in the literatüre -Huntingtons Institutional Distinction Theory, Janowitzs Professional Soldier Theory, Schiffs Concordance Theory, Feavers Agency Theory, and Blands Shared Responsibility Theory- are first analyzed theoretically, and then their explanatory capacity in the Turkish context is evaluated. Each theory analyzes civil-military relations through a distinct conceptual framework based on the legitimacy of political authority, military loyalty, institutional control mechanisms, and culturalsocial cohesion. However, in a country like Turkeywhere the military bureaucracy has played not only a technical but also an ideological role, where modernization occurred late, and where secularization was implemented top-downthese theories fall short of providing comprehensive explanations. This limitation stems from the fact that most of these theories are built upon the conditions of consolidated Western democracies. The article critically discusses how these theories function in explaining developments in the Turkish context by examining the practices of the Democrat Party DP government prior to the 1960 coup, unrest within the military, and the deepening of societal polarization. Feavers concepts of shirking and monitoring are employed to explain events ranging from the coup proposal made to İnönü to the DPs mechanisms of military oversight. Schiffs emphasis on institutional concordance is used to illustrate how the consensus among the military, civilian elites, and the public was gradually undermined. Janowitzs focus on civil-societal integration sheds light on the sociological dynamics behind the militarys perception of the DPs religiously oriented policies as a threat. By demonstrating the inadequacies of these theoretical frameworks in the Turkish case, the study argues that understanding civil-military relations requires not only a focus on institutional arrangements and legal frameworks but also attention to historical identities, ideological cleavages, and the cultural codes through which society perceives military actors. The study concludes that establishing sustainable and democratic civil-military relations in Turkey depends not only on constitutional arrangements, but also on building institutional trust, fostering a sense of mutual responsibility, and legitimizing military reforms in the eyes of the publicall of which require a multidimensional approach.

 This study examines the historically and structurally multilayered nature of civil-military relations in Turkey through a theoretical analysis centered on the May 27, 1960 military coup. Five major theories that stand out in the literatüre -Huntingtons Institutional Distinction Theory, Janowitzs Professional Soldier Theory, Schiffs Concordance Theory, Feavers Agency Theory, and Blands Shared Responsibility Theory- are first analyzed theoretically, and then their explanatory capacity in the Turkish context is evaluated. Each theory analyzes civil-military relations through a distinct conceptual framework based on the legitimacy of political authority, military loyalty, institutional control mechanisms, and culturalsocial cohesion. However, in a country like Turkeywhere the military bureaucracy has played not only a technical but also an ideological role, where modernization occurred late, and where secularization was implemented top-downthese theories fall short of providing comprehensive explanations. This limitation stems from the fact that most of these theories are built upon the conditions of consolidated Western democracies. The article critically discusses how these theories function in explaining developments in the Turkish context by examining the practices of the Democrat Party DP government prior to the 1960 coup, unrest within the military, and the deepening of societal polarization. Feavers concepts of shirking and monitoring are employed to explain events ranging from the coup proposal made to İnönü to the DPs mechanisms of military oversight. Schiffs emphasis on institutional concordance is used to illustrate how the consensus among the military, civilian elites, and the public was gradually undermined. Janowitzs focus on civil-societal integration sheds light on the sociological dynamics behind the militarys perception of the DPs religiously oriented policies as a threat. By demonstrating the inadequacies of these theoretical frameworks in the Turkish case, the study argues that understanding civil-military relations requires not only a focus on institutional arrangements and legal frameworks but also attention to historical identities, ideological cleavages, and the cultural codes through which society perceives military actors. The study concludes that establishing sustainable and democratic civil-military relations in Turkey depends not only on constitutional arrangements, but also on building institutional trust, fostering a sense of mutual responsibility, and legitimizing military reforms in the eyes of the publicall of which require a multidimensional approach.

 Bu çalışma, Türkiyedeki sivil-asker ilişkilerinin tarihsel ve yapısal olarak çok katmanlı doğasını, 27 Mayıs 1960 Askerî Darbesi örneği üzerinden kuramsal bir analizle ele almaktadır. Literatürde öne çıkan beş temel kuram -Huntingtonın Kurumsal Ayrım Kuramı, Janowitzin Profesyonel Asker Kuramı, Schiffin Uyum Kuramı, Feaverın Vekâlet Teorisi ve Blandin Paylaşılan Sorumluluk Kuramı- öncelikle teorik olarak incelenmiş, ardından bu kuramların Türkiye bağlamındaki açıklayıcılık kapasitesi değerlendirilmiştir. Her bir kuram, sivil-asker ilişkilerini siyasal otoritenin meşruiyeti, askerî sadakat, kurumsal denetim mekanizmaları ve kültüreltoplumsal uyum eksenlerinde farklı kavramsal bir anlayışla analiz etmektedir. Ancak Türkiye gibi askerî bürokrasinin sadece teknik değil aynı zamanda ideolojik bir rol üstlendiği modernleşmesini geç tamamlamış ve sekülerleşmeyi yukarıdan aşağıya gerçekleştirmiş bir ülkede, bu kuramların açıklayıcılığı sınırlı kalmaktadır. Zira bu kuramların büyük kısmı Batı tipi oturmuş demokratik rejimlerin koşullarına dayanmaktadır. Makale, 1960 Askerî Darbesi öncesinde Demokrat Parti iktidarının uygulamaları, ordu içinde gelişen huzursuzluklar ve toplumsal kutuplaşma üzerinden yukarıda anılan kuramların Türkiye bağlamında ne ölçüde işlevsel olduğunu ampirik örneklerle tartışmaktadır. Feaverın shirking ve monitoring kavramları İnönüye yapılan darbe teklifinden DPnin ordu üzerindeki denetim mekanizmalarına kadar birçok gelişmeyi açıklamada kullanılmış; Schiffin kuramsal uyum vurgusu ordu, sivil elitler ve halk arasındaki meşruiyet uzlaşısının nasıl bozulduğunu göstermede yararlı olmuştur. Janowitzin sivil-toplumsal entegrasyon vurgusu DPnin halkla bütünleşen dini politikalarının ordu tarafından tehdit olarak algılanmasının ardındaki sosyolojik dinamikleri açımlamaktadır. Çalışma, bu kuramsal yaklaşımların Türkiye örneğinde neden yetersiz kaldığını göstererek, sivil-asker ilişkilerini anlamada sadece kurumsal denetim ya da yasal çerçeveye değil aynı zamanda tarihsel kimlikler, ideolojik çatışmalar ve toplumun askerî aktörleri nasıl algıladığı gibi kültürel kodlara da odaklanılması gerektiğini ileri sürmektedir. Bu çalışma, Türkiyede sürdürülebilir demokratik sivil-asker ilişkilerinin kurulmasının yalnızca anayasal düzenlemelere değil kurumsal güven inşası, karşılıklı sorumluluk bilinci ve askerî reformların toplum nezdinde meşrulaştırılması gibi çok boyutlu bir yaklaşıma dayandığını savunmaktadır.

Makale detayları

THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS OF CIVIL-MILITARY RELATIONS AND THE CASE OF THE 1960 COUP IN TURKIYE

Yazarlar:

Olkan Senemoğlu | Şeyda Bükrücü Kazkondu

Yayıncı:

Ayla KAŞOĞLU

Ana Başlıklar:

Türk Siyasal Hayatı

Dergi:

Avrasya Uluslararası Araştırmalar Dergisi Vol.13 Issue 44, pp.171-201

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

8/2025

Belge Dili:

İngilizce

Document ID (Org No.):

2001358114

pISSN:

2147-2610

Civil-Military Relations

1960 Military Coup

Institutional Control

Professionalism and Loyalty

Concordance and Political Legitimacy.Sivil-Asker İlişkileri

1960 Askerî Darbesi

Kurumsal Denetim

Profesyonellik ve Sadakat

Uyum ve Siyasal Meşruiyet.

Sayı

Makale detayları

Yazarlar: Olkan Senemoğlu | Şeyda Bükrücü Kazkondu

Yayıncı: Ayla KAŞOĞLU

Ana Başlıklar: Türk Siyasal Hayatı

Dergi: Avrasya Uluslararası Araştırmalar Dergisi Vol.13 Issue 44, pp.171-201

Belge Tipi: Makale

Yayın Tarihi: 8/2025

Belge Dili: İngilizce

Document ID (Org No.): 2001358114

pISSN: 2147-2610

Sayı

Yazarlar:

Olkan Senemoğlu | Şeyda Bükrücü Kazkondu

Yayıncı:

Ayla KAŞOĞLU

Ana Başlıklar:

Türk Siyasal Hayatı

Dergi:

Avrasya Uluslararası Araştırmalar Dergisi Vol.13 Issue 44, pp.171-201

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

8/2025

Belge Dili:

İngilizce

Document ID (Org No.):

2001358114

pISSN:

2147-2610