The evolution of civil-military relations in post-war Turkey, Karabelias (2006)

(131): 1876, Turkey's first constitution and Parliament

(132): DP punished for pursuing policies that hurt military, 1950-1960

(133): Between 1960-1965, and 1971-1973, military in power--able to resolve pol/organizational problems [Did this better than Pak military? Why?]

(133): 1980 Coup happened after economic crisis and 'mobilization'

(133): 12 September 1980 to 6 December 1983, military rule

(134): important--military sponsored a constitutional intervention to safeguard its powers (Constitution of 1982), and institutionalized themselves in power, shaping the terrain of political competition, banning parties, etc. [How is this different from praetorian democracy?]

(139): in the early-mid 1990s, a series of crises meant that the Military still wielded substantial control

(140): military as an institution was (1) very large and important; (2) very cohesive [True of Pakistan as well, though. This can't explain much of anything]

(140): Details re: military's independent economic power [Again, here important to see what exactly the contrast with Pakistan consists in]

(141): Civilians have relatively less legitimacy [Means miltary can open the democratic process w/o as much fear?]