The Difference Between the Success and Failure of the Turkish Coup!

As the state of emergency in Turkey is once again brought up by Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, the President of Turkey, on Saturday, October 1, the necessary authorization for the continued presence of Turkish armed forces in Syria and Iraq has also been approved by the parliament for another 13 months. In the approval of this urgent legal bill, apart from the Peoples' Democratic Party, the other parties present in the parliament, including Justice and Development, the Republican People's Party, and the Nationalist Movement Party, have voted in favor of it by a majority. However, what has not been far from the minds and a point of contention among parliament members is the extension of the state of emergency in the country. This state of emergency was implemented by the government for three months following the failed coup on July 15 and was supposed to continue from the 21st of that month until October 10, 2016, for a period of 90 days. With the onset of the state of emergency in Turkey, many military and civil employees were detained and arrested, and some who were initially linked to the Fethullah Gülen movement remain imprisoned. Among those arrested are various groups, from educational staff in the Ministry of National Education and universities to the National Intelligence Organization (MIT), and from the armed forces to many journalists and political and social analysts. Following this failed coup, more than 80,000 people were arrested, and 260 individuals, both affiliated and ordinary citizens, died for various reasons. It is clear that the state of emergency conditions, according to the constitution and guidelines developed by the National Security Council, cannot continue for more than two terms and is ultimately applicable for up to six months. However, the President of Turkey has commented on this matter, stating, "No one has the right to define a time limit for us... the state of emergency can continue until complete stability is achieved." (Source: Cumhuriyet newspaper, October 2, 2016, Analysis: Ali Sirmen) Recep Tayyip Erdoğan cites the need to unify all state organizations and the necessity to focus on security and stabilize all state infrastructures as the reasons for the continuation of the state of emergency. He has also raised the existence of the risk of terrorist actions and referred to Article 120 of the constitution regarding the continuation of the state of emergency. What is more noteworthy is the statement by Binali Yıldırım, the Prime Minister of Turkey, who announced during a press interview on Saturday, October 1, that supporters of Fethullah Gülen are spreading rumors about the possibility of a second coup, which he considers to be a "treasonous" act. This comes as just days prior, the President of Turkey had spoken about the ongoing risks in Turkey and, as mentioned, discussed the disregard for time limitations. Yıldırım stated in talks with reporters that Turkish police are taking all necessary measures to prevent a coup, adding, "A new attempt (for a coup) will take place, apparently tonight or tomorrow... these are lies propagated by the Fethullah Gülen terrorist organization (FETO) to establish the basis for social unrest." (Quoted from Akit newspaper) Amid the contradictory statements of Turkish political officials regarding the socio-political conditions in Turkey, signs of instability in normal conditions are still evident. Last week, another 162 academics, journalists, and employees of state institutions were arrested, and 24 television networks, mostly private, were shut down. A large number of people in Turkey are asking themselves what the difference is between the success and failure of the coup and what has changed. Furthermore, Yekta Saraç, the head of Turkey's National Education Organization (YÖK), announced on Friday, coinciding with the start of the new academic year, that necessary measures are underway to identify and root out the infiltrators of the Fethullah Gülen ideology in universities in Northern Cyprus. It is evident that despite the Prime Minister of Turkey labeling the existence of potential danger as a "rumor," serious concerns and worries still exist among various officials in Turkey, and political leaders emphasize this in various ways. The day after, on Sunday, October 2, the Prime Minister of Turkey, in a ceremony for the youth organizations of the Justice and Development Party, changed his perspective and approach regarding potential dangers, stating: "They (the Gülen movement) think they can take action. If you take action, you will certainly receive an appropriate response. Our nation should not be worried about such threats, but they should not fall into lethargy and weakness either. We are prepared for any potential event around the clock." Despite all this, Turkish political leaders have expressed their dissatisfaction with the current situation and voiced their protests. For instance, Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu, the leader of the Republican People's Party, during the inauguration of the Zülfü Livaneli Arts Center project in the Çankaya area (Ankara) on Sunday, stated in his speech: "Currently, a number of writers, journalists, and artists are imprisoned, and tolerating such conditions is unacceptable. Turkey has become an open-air prison... Turkey is moving towards contemporary civilization and will continue on its path." Turkey today, with the conditions arising after the failed coup, continues to tread a critical path. According to a report by Human Rights Watch, more than 50 days after the coup, 40,000 people remain under supervision, 20,000 are imprisoned, and 80,000 have been dismissed from their administrative jobs. What comes to mind is that if the coup had succeeded, what would have happened? Certainly, the political-social state of emergency would have been extended multiple times, many would have been arrested and punished, and anxiety and mental turmoil would have continued until stability was achieved in the country. This is a matter that a large number of people in Turkey are contemplating and asking themselves what the difference is between the success and failure of the coup and what has changed.