Diese Hausarbeit untersucht die Militärregimes in der Türkei und Griechenland. Dazu wird zunächst der historische Hintergrund aufgezeigt. Im Hauptteil wird der theoretische Rahmen dargestellt und auf der Grundlage dessen der eigentliche Vergleich angestellt. Die Analyse bezieht sich auf die Militärregimes, die in beiden Ländern durch einen coup d´état ausgelöst wurden,
wobei nur die aktuellsten Militärregimes betrachtet werden, mit anderen Worten die Militärjunta in Griechenland von 1967-74 and in der Türkei von 1980-83. Im darauf folgenden Teil wird die Rolle des Militärs in der Türkei und Griechenland heute bewertet. Es wird dargestellt, wie die Art und Weise wie das Militär wahrgenommen wird, sich verändert, und somit auch seine Rolle in der heutigen Gesellschaft in Hinblick auf seine Macht und seinen Einfluss.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Historical overview of the military regimes
2.1 Greece 1967-1974
2.2 Turkey 1980-83
3. The comparative analysis
3.1 The theoretical framework
3.1.1 Civil-military relationships by Nordlinger and Janowitz
3.1.2 Types of military regime by Nordlinger, Clapham and Philip
3.2 The practical analysis
3.2.1 General findings – Similarities and Differences
3.2.2 Application of the Theories
4. The role of the military today
4.1 In Greece
4.2 In Turkey
5. Conclusion
Objectives and Core Themes
This paper provides a comparative analysis of the military regimes in Turkey and Greece, focusing specifically on the Greek junta (1967–1974) and the Turkish military period (1980–1983). The primary research aim is to examine the conditions leading to these interventions and to evaluate the role of the military in contemporary society, utilizing established theoretical frameworks of civil-military relations to determine the nature of these regimes.
- Historical context of the Greek and Turkish military regimes.
- Application of theoretical models (Nordlinger, Janowitz, Clapham, and Philip) to military rule.
- Comparative analysis of similarities and differences in civil-military dynamics.
- Assessment of the current political influence and roles of the military in both nations.
Excerpt from the Book
3.1.2 Types of military regime by Nordlinger, Clapham and Philip
These types are differentiated by their aims, length of time in power and degree of penetration into and control over political, economic and social structures.
Veto regimes exercise veto power over governmental decisions, without taking over power themselves. The government’s decisions may be restricted or directed by the military in many fields. Those regimes are conservative, aiming at preserving the status quo, although it is possible to carry out a displacement coup in which a civilian government is overthrown and replaced by another one more acceptable to the military.
In guardian regimes a higher degree of penetration and control is exercised. They take over direct political power. They intend to sort out the mess that civilian governments created and then return the power to civilian hands after having created conditions that should avoid recreating the situation which led to the original military intervention. Thus the period of power will be limited.
A ruler regime exercises a far greater degree of political control than either of the previous types and does so for a far longer period of time. The leader of those regimes may be described as revolutionaries or radical modernisers. They overthrow existing political institutions, and restructure economy and social life. This regime is the most authoritarian of the three provided ones.
Chapter Summaries
1. Introduction: Outlines the research scope, focusing on the Greek and Turkish military regimes and the comparative methodology applied throughout the paper.
2. Historical overview of the military regimes: Provides a factual timeline and context regarding the 1967-1974 Greek junta and the 1980-1983 military rule in Turkey.
3. The comparative analysis: Establishes a theoretical foundation using models of civil-military control and applies these to analyze the practical experiences of both nations.
4. The role of the military today: Examines the contemporary standing of the armed forces in Greece and Turkey, emphasizing the evolution of their influence and subordination to civilian authorities.
5. Conclusion: Synthesizes the findings, noting that while both countries share a history of military intervention, their modern paths regarding civil-military relations have diverged significantly.
Keywords
Military regime, Greece, Turkey, Junta, Civil-military relations, Comparative analysis, Coup d'état, Guardian regime, Ruler regime, Veto regime, Democracy, Civilian control, National Security Council, Political reform, Sovereignty.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this research paper?
The paper examines the historical military regimes in Turkey and Greece, comparing their characteristics, justifications, and the long-term impact on their respective political systems.
What are the central themes explored in the text?
Key themes include the historical background of military juntas, the application of theoretical models to military power, and the shift toward civilian supremacy in modern governance.
What is the primary goal of the comparative study?
The goal is to determine how the specific regimes in Greece (1967–74) and Turkey (1980–83) fit into international theoretical frameworks regarding military control and governance.
Which scientific methods are employed in this analysis?
The author uses a comparative political science approach, applying established models from scholars like Nordlinger, Janowitz, Clapham, and Philip to analyze historical coup data and contemporary political structures.
What content is covered in the main section of the paper?
The main part includes a detailed theoretical framework, followed by a practical analysis that contrasts the similarities and differences in how these two countries navigated their military regimes.
Which keywords best characterize this work?
The primary keywords include Military regime, Civil-military relations, Greece, Turkey, Junta, and Civilian control.
How does the author categorize the Turkish military regime of 1980-83?
The author classifies the 1980-1983 Turkish intervention as a "guardian regime," characterized by relatively high unity of command and a temporary duration intended to restore order before returning to civilian control.
How has the Greek military's role changed since 1974?
Since the end of the junta in 1974, Greece has successfully incorporated the military into civil society, establishing a liberal-democratic relationship where the military is strictly subordinated to civilian political authority.
What distinguishes the Greek case from the theoretical models?
The author argues that the Greek experience is unique and does not fit perfectly into one ideal type, ultimately suggesting it falls somewhere between a guardian and a ruler regime due to its long duration and authoritarian nature.
What role does the National Security Council play in Turkey?
Historically a source of military influence, recent reforms have transformed it into a consultative body with a civilian majority, aiming to reduce the direct political involvement of the military in government decisions.
- Quote paper
- Susanne Voigt (Author), 2007, Military regimes in Turkey and Greece - A comparative analysis , Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/186425
