"Mesut Yılmaz stuns European Parliament with party closure remarks," Today's Zaman reported three days ago. In a debate he participated in with Ufuk Uras, leader of the Freedom and Solidarity Party (ÖDP), Yılmaz defended the role of the military in Turkish society. "The military," according to Yılmaz, "has two sensitivities: disunity of the public due to separatism and reactionary activities stemming from religious fundamentalism... As long as the threats of separatism and fundamentalism remain, the military cannot be expected to return to its barracks."

Yılmaz has never been so outspoken in Turkey; on the contrary, he always presented himself as a democrat; otherwise, he wouldn't have been re-elected as a deputy in July of last year. Yılmaz campaigned on a democratic platform as an independent candidate and asked his compatriots to restore his right to exist in Parliament, since he was brought in front of the Supreme Court of Appeals on embezzlement charges. His case was rejected by the court as the statute of limitations had expired.

Now he seems to have accepted the military as a political player.

The threats described by Yılmaz that would prompt the military to step in will never cease to exist in Turkey. They have been with us from time immemorial and as long as we accept them as pretexts for military intervention, they will never disappear. The army stepped in and put all the leaders of the Democrat Party (DP) into prison in 1960. It did the same in 1971 and 1980 and overturned the democratically elected governments of Süleyman Demirel.

Some believe the recitation of the ezan, or call for prayer, in Arabic is proof that Turkey is under a fundamentalist threat, since in the early phase of the republic it was recited in Turkish. There are some who demand a return to those happy days. During the four military interventions we have experienced, the soldiers had the opportunity to make that dream possible, but they refrained from doing so. Why? Is it because they want to keep it as a threat and use it when they feel it is time to intervene? Or when the time comes to assume responsibility, does the military also behave like seasoned politicians?

The leaders of the DP and Demirel don't fit the description of "reactionary" or "fundamentalist," but nevertheless, in each of those three interventions, the military used the same pretext: fundamentalism. Even Yılmaz himself, while he was prime minister, was accused of being a fundamentalist by the military. His government came very close to being toppled by the army for the same reason.

The day when Yılmaz's utterances reached the Turkish press, thousands of people, young and old, took to the streets in İstanbul to demand more democracy. "No to the military coups," they chanted.

The two developments couldn't be timelier. Taraf, an independent daily, disclosed an official document prepared by the Office of the General Staff. The army, which is restless because of the public's unruly political behavior, has decided to apply strict measures to bend the public's will by luring media and pseudo-civil organizations to their cause.

It is not surprising that the document's scribes announced the judiciary as their honor brothers to be brought over to the side of the army and put a part of media in the bull's eye while using another part of the media to target the latter. According to the document, the commanders would invite some justices, politicians, businessmen and journalists to break bread in order to gain their confidence. They will exert every effort to bring the media as well into the army's line.

The Office of the General Staff hasn't denied the existence or authenticity of the document and only said such a document hasn't reached the level of military chiefs for approval.

I have no idea if Yılmaz is one of those who have been approached for the cause; I don't believe so, although the discourse he used in the European Parliament's debate did provide a summary of the document's description.

Yılmaz is a deputy in Parliament, but he has little regard for democratic principles. He believes they should be disregarded on the altar of the military's sensitivities. He urges politicians to give guarantees to the army to never overstep the boundaries prescribed by the military and never indulge in satisfying public demands if those demands compromise the prescribed boundaries.

What kind of democracy is this?

The recent puzzle I am trying to solve is very simple: What will the fate of the newly built AK Party headquarters be? Is it going to be taken over by a state body as was the case with the AP of Demirel, or be rented out to a supermarket chain as with the ANAP of Yılmaz? Or is Tayyip Erdoğan going to find a way and keep it as it is, intact and in operation?

Todayszaman