Anavatan Party power and army (1983-1991)

One of the most important dilemma in recent history of Turkey has been the relations between TSK and civil power that offers a structure in conflict with the universal democratic criterions. While the term coup refers to the process that can not be explained by democratic conventions in any case; to explain this process in an academic field, ideological viewpoints consulted refers to a different problem, as well. The attitudes both of the politicians who came to power after the 12 September Coup towards to the predecessor soldiers and the soldiers towards to the successor politicians, steps taken that way and official regulations are the main topic of this study.In this study,the outline of the 12 September Coup process has been examined .Exphasizing how is politics formed in the 1980-1983 military regime period after coup,the precautions taken for the period of governments formed after the 6 November 1983 elections have been examined. The precautions taken in the military regime period of Anavatan Party coming to power with the elections of 6 November and its status against TSK have been the main topic of this study.Problems confronted during the power of Anavatan Party (1983-1991) and how it found solutions for these problems ,the attitudes of soldiers towards these solutions and to the power of Anavatan Party have been examined in specific topics. As after every coup, the TSK in the period established after September 12; He tried to continue the tradition of being the keeper and protector of the political, social and economic structure he wanted to be and for which he had prepared the environment before. While trying to continue this tradition, the lessons learned from the past and the job of getting involved in politics were carried out not by risking a junta within the TSK, but through the determined arguments. Against this attitude of the TSK, politicians continued to produce policies against this situation. Starting from the experience of 27 May and 12 March, the parties engaged in a fierce struggle in order to increase and maintain their influence on the management. However, this process continued to be experienced in the reality of Turkey's conditions, rather than being a universal relationship.