Search

This article attempts to explain the divergent domestic roles of the Greek and Turkish militaries after the early 1980s by focusing on the last overt military interventions. The 1967 intervention in Greece and the 1980 coup in Turkey differed from each other in terms of the amount and nature of political autonomy that each military maintained immediately following each country 's transition to democracy. Indeed, in each country, the transition process had a significant impact on civil—military relations in the succeeding years. The Greek junta faced civilian and military resistance, and, therefore, the colonels were pressured to completely withdraw from politics. The Turkish coup, on the other hand, was carried out by a cohesive military and was at least implicitly endorsed by a number of influential civilians. This allowed the military to withdraw voluntarily, guide the transition, and maintain political autonomy after 1983. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The civil-military-relations literature has long concentrated on domestic factors in explaining the relationship between civilians and the military, This article concentrates on the effect of an external actor, the European Union (EU), on civil-military relations in Greece and Turkey. The main findings reveal that the two countries shared similar characteristics until the mid-1970s. However, their path of civil-military relations diverged considerably as soon as Greece's EU membership prospect became tangible. While in the Greek case, "civilianization" took place. Turkey had witnessed a mere "demilitarization" of its regime. However, the article also shows how EU membership paves the way for the improvement of civil-military relations in the Turkish case. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article highlights the international conference on the Globalization of Civil-Military Relations: Democratization, Reform and Security in Romania and the 4th International Symposium on Ethnic Identities and Globalization and Human Security in the Post-Cold War World in Greece in 2002. Thirty scholars from all over the world participated and presented papers in the gathering in Romania. The papers were categorized under the subtopics Democratization, Reform and Security. The organizers of the event in Greece are the International Democritus Foundation Committee and the Laboratory of Anthropology of Democritus University.

The article describes the evolution of civil-military relations in Albania, Greece and Turkey. As the political system of post-war Albania revolved around authoritarian-personal and authoritarian-mass party types, political leaders seized the opportunity to acquire and maintain complete control over the military institution. The small size of the officer corps and the country's financial poverty served as a fertile ground for the strengthening of traditional patron-client relations to the detriment of the military's unity and cohesion. Throughout the history of modern Greece, it was the politicians, powerful local landowners, rich merchants, members of the Diaspora, and influential foreign powers that forced the officer corps to accept a secondary political role. Throughout the history of modern Greece, it was the politicians, powerful local landowners, rich merchants, members of the Diaspora, and influential foreign powers that forced the officer corps to accept a secondary political role. In contrast with the cases of Albania and Greece, the military has traditionally occupied a pre-dominant position in the evolution of political life in both the Ottoman Empire and Modem Turkey.

Examines the civil-military relations in Greece after the dictatorship. Background of the civil-military relations in Greece from the early 19th century to 1974; Details of the development of the civil-military relations from 1975 to 1995; Factors contributing to the development of civil-military relations in Greece from 1975 to 1995.

Examines the evolution of civil-military relations in Post-war Turkey. Role of civil-militarization in Ottomanian politics; Definition of socio-political groups; Responsibility of a sultan in preserving an empire; Contribution of the Greeks in establishing the Turkish state; Role of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk in the creation of the Turkish Republic.

The article presents information on the role of the Greek military in the democratic consolidation of that country. The literature concerning consolidation processes and democratic transition has presented various explanations concerning the different capabilities of militaries to place limits on democratization. Greek military's withdrawal from politics raises several important theoretical issues. The reasons and motivations of officers for withdrawing do not appear to indicate a commitment to permanent withdrawal and depoliticization, which is a precondition for democratic consolidation. Evidence offered by the Greek case shows that, military officers might be willing to indulge in politics even though the military has been removed from power.

The article discusses the passage of military to civilian rule and a mixed civil-military system created by the praetorian authorities in an effort to legalize the rule or ensure a continuous role of military in the political affair in Greece. A brief history of the military's role in modern Greek history that explicated the disagreement to the nature of professionalism's impact concerning that finds professionalism as a factor inhibiting intervention and as a stimulant to praetorianism. When the country became a sovereign nation since the late 1820s, the country has witnessed numerous military, both direct and indirect coups. The causes of the military retraction from politics in July 1974 are pressures from officers and the long-range professional interests.

The article describes civil-military relations in Greece. The historical background of civil-military relations is necessary for evaluating and understanding the political role of the Greek officer corps and its relationships with political elites. This relation can be divided into six major phases and value orientations. They include the Westernization phase, the nationalistic phase, the interventionist phase, the anticommunist phase, the Americanization phase and the differentiated phase. It is said that political and military leadership tend to coincide with very little differentiation between military and civilian elites.