Description
Democracy and violence are generally considered incompatible, while violence is integral to many democracies. The trench operations effectively ending the resolution process between the Turkish state and the PKK, carried out through the cooperation between civil and military state authorities in Turkey, are an example of state violence legitimised (and legalised) in a democratic context without a declared emergency or war. During the operations, the distinction between war and peace lost clarity. The line separating the measures taken by security professionals who were part of military operations to clear the country of enemies in war from the crimes they commit while violating civilian inhabitants’ human rights became blurry. By using the case of trench operations, I intend to explore the juridico-political processes in which military operations within the national territory (and north Syria) could be carried out and legitimised in a parliamentary democracy and how political gains may change the government’s security agenda, leading to military operations. Through examining the case, I argue that violence and democracy may be co-constitutive when a security-oriented discourse and actions of state authorities dominate domestic politics. For, violence is legitimised through democratically formed institutions or framed as a response to an existential threat.
