sakallioglu, "the anatomy..." (1997)
(152) 'professionalism' predisposes the military to political influence (Stepan vs. Huntington)
(153) Turkish military intervention in politics as a subtler form of 'indirect influence' --not the kind of direct influence seen in Thailand or Indonesia (a kind that respects civil-military boundaries, etc.) [to be distinguished, also, from Pakistan, then?]
(154) 1982 constitution gives the military veto power
(154) 1971 and 1980, the military had a small # of allies (vs 1960); it was "at a distance from the rest of society" [this could form part of the argument about lacking a domestic constituency]
(155) 60s gov't relented to challenge military prerogatives
(157) 1980s, various constitutional interventions further entrenched military's autonomous powers--the evolution of the National Security Council was case-in-point; also, the office of the President [again, praetorian like Pakistan?]
(158-159) Evolution of COS position (towards greater autonomy)
(161) NIA (like the ISI) had considerable powers; though not quite a "state within a state"
(162) military's influence becoming even more pronounced; 1980s interventions were 'more authoritarian than ever before' [much of the explanation has to relate to this argument about the lack of domestic allies. though, again, the lack of domestic allies is twinned to the fact that people remain more trusting of the military than of civilian elites]
(152) 'professionalism' predisposes the military to political influence (Stepan vs. Huntington)
(153) Turkish military intervention in politics as a subtler form of 'indirect influence' --not the kind of direct influence seen in Thailand or Indonesia (a kind that respects civil-military boundaries, etc.) [to be distinguished, also, from Pakistan, then?]
(154) 1982 constitution gives the military veto power
(154) 1971 and 1980, the military had a small # of allies (vs 1960); it was "at a distance from the rest of society" [this could form part of the argument about lacking a domestic constituency]
(155) 60s gov't relented to challenge military prerogatives
(157) 1980s, various constitutional interventions further entrenched military's autonomous powers--the evolution of the National Security Council was case-in-point; also, the office of the President [again, praetorian like Pakistan?]
(158-159) Evolution of COS position (towards greater autonomy)
(161) NIA (like the ISI) had considerable powers; though not quite a "state within a state"
(162) military's influence becoming even more pronounced; 1980s interventions were 'more authoritarian than ever before' [much of the explanation has to relate to this argument about the lack of domestic allies. though, again, the lack of domestic allies is twinned to the fact that people remain more trusting of the military than of civilian elites]
No comments:
Post a Comment