Unpopular dissent
The reasons for failure in Turkey’s coup may be numerous but there was a missing ingredient in the attempted coup and that ingredient was of popular dissent
On 15July 2016 a military coup was attempted by a small faction of the Turkish Armed Forces. The faction hijacked and took control of certain key institutions of the state, ironically declaring themselves the new saviors of civil liberties, which they attempted to preserve by forcibly taking power.
This soon was followed by Tayyip Erdogan, who at the time was on vacation, calling on the people of Turkey to rise against the coup plotters. True to our present day technological advances this message was sent through facetime. His call was heard and complied with and soon the government regained control and the pro coup soldiers surrendered or suffered a worse fate. Something that had never before been seen happened, a military coup was transformed into an attempted coup when the force of the masses crushed the armed forces attempting to take power.
The reasons for failure in Turkey’s coup may be numerous but there was a missing ingredient in the attempted coup and that ingredient was of popular dissent. Erdogan’s government may not have been perfect and perhaps many members of the public did not agree with them. Perhaps it would be fair to say that his leadership is not very welcoming towards criticism and the concept of opposition and perhaps in this regard the criticism by the advocates of civil liberties may not be ill founded.
However, after having achieved great success in the fields of economy, infrastructure and education amongst others and having made Turkey a serious contender for membership in the European Union, they certainly did not fall in the category of an unacceptable government. His time in office did witness a revolutionary change in the quality of lives of the ordinary people. The present government did have a very high GDP growth and hence the uprising against the government was opposed by so many who benefited under them. As the leader was so popular the dissent against him was not and hence the coup failed.
When observing political history over time we will witness that democracy of sorts has always existed. Rulers may have come into power through force but their acceptance and the length of their rule has always been dependent on how popular their governance was amongst the masses. Rule over a body of people has always required that they are politically administered where their needs and wants are met with, followed with a certain level of state authority to maintain discipline, which perhaps holds true for our present day governments as well.
Whenever the ruler losses his acceptability amongst the masses they have been replaced by rulers of greater acceptability. Strength of arms may make the presence and rule of an unpopular leader possible for a limited period of time but soon they too get sacked by those vouching for the same position. Those who vouch for the same position must also provide a superior quality of governance or at least the illusion of one.
Even Niccolo Machiavelli in his book The Prince, which was written back in the year 1513 and which served as an instruction manual for rulers for many centuries after, very clearly stressed on the importance of the ruler to be acceptable to the masses. Whereas at that time democratic rule was not even considered as a form governance. The Prince for all practical purposes was meant for the shrewd leader who wanted to master the art of maintaining and expanding power. Even to this day the Machiavellian school of thought is that of the uncaring, ruthless mind.
In the case of Pakistan we will find that in the three military takeovers the government of the day was an unpopular one.
Ayub Khan’s Coup took place when in 1958 Iskandar Mirza the president of the time in order to secure his own governance at the time ordered martial law. As irony would have it he was removed two weeks later by a coup by the martial law administrator he himself appointed.
Zia Ul Haq’s coup took place in 1977 when Zulfiqar Bhutto the prime minister of the time was suffering from severe opposition and after being accused of staging a rigged election was removed through a military coup in which Bhutto with his cabinet was arrested.
Pervez Musharraf’s coup in 1999 took place in the aftermath of the failure in Kargil in which the sitting government of the time was at the lowest ebb of its popularity.
What is consistent about these three military coups which is not consistent with the attempted Turkish coup is that in all three cases an unpopular government was overthrown. In Turkey’s case a government fulfilling their duties towards its people was being removed and hence the people retaliated in defense of the government.
