Theoretical Foundations of Civil-Military Relations and the Case of the 1960 Coup in Turkiye

Bibliographic Data

ID21998514
AuthorsOlkan Senemoğlu (0000-0001-6290-6631, Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart Üniversitesi), Şeyda Bükrücü Kazkondu (0000-0002-1170-317X, Zonguldak Bülent Ecevit University)
Year2025
Volume13
Issue44
Pages171-201
Publication date2025-09-15
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueAvrasya Uluslararası Araştırmalar Dergisi (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 2147-2610 • E-ISSN: 2147-2610
PublisherAvrasya Uluslararas脹 Arast脹rmalar Dergisi (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.33692/avrasyad.1677368
OpenAlexW4414114716
LanguageEN
References cited11

This study examines the historically and structurally multilayered nature of civil-military relations in Turkey through a theoretical analysis centered on the May 27, 1960 military coup. Five major theories that stand out in the literatüre -Huntington’s Institutional Distinction Theory, Janowitz’s Professional Soldier Theory, Schiff’s Concordance Theory, Feaver’s Agency Theory, and Bland’s Shared Responsibility Theory- are first analyzed theoretically, and then their explanatory capacity in the Turkish context is evaluated. Each theory analyzes civil-military relations through a distinct conceptual framework based on the legitimacy of political authority, military loyalty, institutional control mechanisms, and cultural/social cohesion. However, in a country like Turkey—where the military bureaucracy has played not only a technical but also an ideological role, where modernization occurred late, and where secularization was implemented top-down—these theories fall short of providing comprehensive explanations. This limitation stems from the fact that most of these theories are built upon the conditions of consolidated Western democracies. The article critically discusses how these theories function in explaining developments in the Turkish context by examining the practices of the Democrat Party (DP) government prior to the 1960 coup, unrest within the military, and the deepening of societal polarization. Feaver’s concepts of “shirking” and “monitoring” are employed to explain events ranging from the coup proposal made to İnönü to the DP’s mechanisms of military oversight. Schiff’s emphasis on institutional concordance is used to illustrate how the consensus among the military, civilian elites, and the public was gradually undermined. Janowitz’s focus on civil-societal integration sheds light on the sociological dynamics behind the military’s perception of the DP’s religiously oriented policies as a threat. By demonstrating the inadequacies of these theoretical frameworks in the Turkish case, the study argues that understanding civil-military relations requires not only a focus on institutional arrangements and legal frameworks but also attention to historical identities, ideological cleavages, and the cultural codes through which society perceives military actors. The study concludes that establishing sustainable and democratic civil-military relations in Turkey depends not only on constitutional arrangements, but also on building institutional trust, fostering a sense of mutual responsibility, and legitimizing military reforms in the eyes of the public—all of which require a multidimensional approach

Bureaucracy · Ideology · Legitimacy · Modernization theory · Politics · Political Conflict and Governance · Politics and Conflicts in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Middle East · Turkey's Politics and Society

Tools

Open DOIOpen Access