Kenan Evren, the former Turkish president now facing charges in an Ankara court, is only the most recent in a long line of military officers to seize power in a coup.
The military has long seen itself as the "guardian of Turkish democracy", which it defines as the staunchly secular state created by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the founder of the modern Turkish republic. It has directly intervened three times in Turkish politics, and in 1997 it carried out what some scholars describe as a "postmodern coup".
1960
The first coup in the Turkish republic took place in 1960, during a time of heightened tensions between the Turkish government and the opposition.
The ruling Democratic Party, headed by prime minister Adnan Menderes and president Celal Bayar, began to loosen some of the toughest Ataturk-era rules dealing with religion: it allowed thousands of mosques to reopen, legalised the call to prayer in Arabic instead of Turkish, and opened new schools for religious personnel, among others. It also shortened the period of mandatory military service.
At the same time, it further alienated the opposition by imposing restrictive new press laws and occasionally barring critical newspapers from publishing.
Growing tensions caused the Menderes government to impose martial law in early 1960. The army stepped in and toppled the government on May 27; the president, prime minister and several cabinet members were arrested and quickly tried for treason and other offences. Menderes was executed.
General Cemal Gursel assumed power - as both president and prime minister - beginning a period of military-dominated politics that would last until 1965.
1971
The Turkish economy stagnated in the late 1960s, and the recession caused widespread unrest: workers' groups staged demonstrations, sometimes violent, and right-wing groups carried out attacks of their own. The currency was devalued in 1960; annual inflation reached nearly 80 percent.
So in March the military intervened once again, an effort to "restore order", it said. Memduh Tagmac, the chief of the general staff, gave a memorandum to the prime minister, Suleyman Demirel. It accused his government of driving the country into anarchy, and demanded the formation of a "strong and credible government ... inspired by Ataturk's views."
Demirel resigned hours later, after meeting with his cabinet.
The military did not rule directly during this period. It first asked Nihat Erim, a member of the right-wing Republican People's Party, to form a caretaker government; it was the first of several which governed Turkey until 1973, when Fahri Koruturk, a retired naval officer, was installed as president by the parliament.
1980
Instability continued even after the 1971 coup: Turkey changed prime ministers 11 times in the 1970s, the economy continued to stagnate, and left and right-wing groups continued their violent clashes in the streets. Thousands of people were assassinated.
The military began discussing a possible coup in late 1979, and in March 1980 a group of generals recommended that they move forward. It was delayed several times, and finally launched in September, when officers announced on state television that they were imposing martial law and dissolving the government.
Evren became president, and a naval officer, Bulent Ulusu, assumed the post of prime minister.
These years of military rule did bring some stability to Turkey. Ulusu was succeeded in 1983 by Turgut Ozal, who is now widely credited with stabilising the Turkish economy by privatising many state-owned industries. Inflation dropped and employment grew.
The military also arrested hundreds of thousands of people; dozens were executed, while many others were tortured or simply disappeared.
A new constitution was drafted and put before a public referendum in 1982; it was overwhelmingly approved.
1997
The 1995 election led to overwhelming gains for the Islamist Welfare party, which took power the following year as the head of a coalition government.
In 1997 the military issued a series of "recommendations", which the government had no choice but to accept. The prime minister, Necmettin Erbakan, agreed to a compulsory eight-year education programme (to prevent pupis from enrolling in religious schools), a headscarf ban at universities, and other measures. Erbakan was then forced to resign.
The Welfare party was shut down in 1998, and Erbakan was banned from politics for five years.
Some former members of the party, including current prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, would eventually go on to found the Justice and Development Party.
Wason Wanichakorn/AP
Apichart Weerawong/AP
Royal Household Bureau/AP
Why Does Thailand Have So Many Coups?
Thailand has a beloved king. The country has had one of the more prosperous economies in Asia. It's a magnet for Western tourists. Its history is largely peaceful. By most measures, Thailand has been very successful.
So why has the country now had a dozen coups, plus many more attempted coups, since it ended its absolute monarchy and became a constitutional monarchy in 1932?
The country is so coup-prone that this week's military takeover marked the second time in eight years the armed forces have ousted a leader from the same family.
Deposed Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra suffered the same fate as her brother, Thaksin Shinawatra, who was overthrown in 2006.
Both are considered political outsiders who aren't part of the traditional elite who dominate in Bangkok and other southern parts of the country. The brother and sister built support with populist appeals to the poorer and more rural Thais in the north of the country. Their rise was seen as a threat to many powerful, entrenched interests, including the military.
But this addresses only the most recent coups. There are websites that debate exactly how many actual and attempted coups Thailand has had. Answer: somewhere between 20 and 30.
A Strong Role For The Military
The country might have been subjected to even more if not for the fact that the military has ruled for extended periods. For example, the military took over from a civilian government in 1947 and remained in power until 1973.
Thailand's propensity for coups stems largely from the fact that the military has always played a leading role in politics, and democracy has never really taken root.
When Gen. Prayuth Chan-Ocha declared martial law on Tuesday, he cited the Martial Law Act of 1914 that gives the armed forces "superior power" during times of crisis.
The military also claimed Tuesday that this was not a coup, a pronouncement greeted with instant skepticism. Sure enough, a coup came two days later.
The military argues that in this case, as in the past, it is acting within Thai law and tradition. The military claims the goal is to restore stability and not to take the country in a radically different direction.
However, many critics disagree, saying the military simply wanted to get rid of a leader it could not tolerate. The army intervened this time after six months of political gridlock and street protests involving supporters and opponents of Yingluck.
Coups With Distinctive Traits
The very notion of a coup tends to bring to mind a weak, impoverished, dysfunctional state. Many African nations and Latin American countries were plagued by coups in years past. And military takeovers can sometimes involve deep ideological struggles, with a right-wing military forcing out a left-wing leader.
Yet in Thailand, these general features tend not to hold. Rather, Thai coups seem to have their own distinctive traits.
The king is a stabilizing force: No matter how much Thai politicians quarrel among themselves, or with the military, no one criticizes King Bhumibol Adulyadej. His elevated status has allowed him to largely stand above the fray and encourage rival factions to work out their differences.
But the king is now 86 and frail. His son, the crown prince, is much less popular, raising questions about what role the monarchy will play this time and in the future.
They are usually bloodless: As with many previous coups, this takeover occurred without a shot being fired. The military is by far the most powerful force in the country and can seize power without any serious challenge.
Thailand's unrest this time has not escalated to the level of widespread violence, let alone civil war.
There have, however, been some notable exceptions. The most recent was in 2010, when troops opened fire on Thaksin supporters who had been occupying Bangkok's commercial center and refused to leave. When it was over, dozens were dead.
The military hands back power: The Thai military does many of the usual things that armies do when they seize power. It bans or restricts public gatherings, carries out searches and detains suspects. Television channels were cut off Wednesday, except for a screen shot that included a clunky English translation from the "National Peace and Order Maintaining Council."
The expectation is that the military will call the shots until it feels the country is ready for civilian politicians to take over again.
But this time, as in the past, no one knows exactly when that will be.
Greg Myre is the international editor for NPR.org. You can follow him @gregmyre1
Correction
SOURCE: AL JAZEERA
沒有留言:
張貼留言