Don't believe him. It is basically full of lies, albeit written with a very good English.

AKP basically used EU as a cover to weaken other significant forces like legal bodies, media, military. Now, they are in phase 2, using their power to crush all others who do not live like them. For example, until late yesterday, there were no major TV channels airing the news. We communicated via Twitter, and the only live broadcasting TV was from Norway!

With the weaking of all opposing forces, there is no significant power left against them, or at least, that was what they thought.

The recent ban on alcoholic drugs, Erdogan's constant mention of the Ottomans as his ancestors, his constant stress during his speeches that he dreams of a religious and obedient youth is what we are opposing.

The notion of democracy Erdogan has is very primitive. In his speeches, basically he sees the voting which takes place every 4 years as the only democratic right a person can have.

It is true that in the past, the Turkish state oppressed some religious groups or major minorities like the Kurdish; but the attitude this government and its proponents have is basically contained with revenge. Just to give a final example, the Major of Ankara, a significant figure from AKP, just yesterday tweeted the following:

"You should thank God that we believe in democracy, otherwise we would drown you in a spoonful of water."

The propaganda this government makes is, quite literally reminiscent of 1984. How they re-define words, how they contradict with themselves at each sentence is stunning. They usually say they are the forerunners of "advanced democracy", when they cannot envision a life form other than their own. Of course, every such speech of them ends with the following lie: we respect everyone's lives, everyone can live as they please. It is like the old Ford saying, everyone can lead the life they like in Turkey, as long as it is approved by AKP.

It seems that some of what you are saying is not that different to the claims I was replying to, but with a different interpretation.

E.g. you consider weakening the power of legal bodies, the media and the military to be bad, but from their point of view, these bodies were supporting an undemocratic power structure that favored the pro-secular minority.

On alcohol, there is not a blanket ban, but fairly strict restrictions (in particular limiting sales of alcohol from 6am to 10pm). And lifting the ban on head-scarfs seems like the lifting of excessive restrictions, not the imposition of Islamic ideas.

As to Erdogan's general ideas on the nature of democracy, can you be more specific?

We are not against lifting of the head-scarfs. His proponents try to paint us, the protestors, as traces of that tradition so that they can still play the part of the wounded. As to his Islamist plans, he is quite open about them. He basically emphasizes in his every speech that their aim is to bring the pious youth of the Ottoman empire.

The legal bodies and free media are fundamental for any democracy. As I said before, AKP gov't used EU-restrictions to crush legal bodies and military, but then after they reached their goals turned their back on the EU since the main goal was different. As to the freedom of media, I think we can agree that it is vital for any democracy and just the fact that these events are not being televised are proof how powerless they are. There are journalists working in the media, who have to share international links since their own TVs cannot show the events.

About his antidemocratic ideals, just from his talks today:

- (when talking about his decision to build a mosque in Taksim) We will build it, whether you like it or not. Decision is made. I will not ask these looters (referring to the hundreds of thousands of protestors) whether to build it or not. - Twitter is a menace. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/europe/article37807... - You gathered 20,000 people. It is not an issue for me to gather 200,000 people. If you gather 100,000 people, it will not be an issue for me to gather 1,000,000 people. - (Referring to advertisers who have decided to cut their ads from TVs who are not showing the events) I have started an investigation about which companies these are.

His thought on democracy can be summed up as thus: The elections take place. The party who wins the majority can do whatever it pleases until the next elections, since that vote has given them that right. There is no need to reach consensus on any affair. The parliament in Turkey is basically powerless, since they hold the majority and can pass any law they want. He sees democracy as a winner takes all game, that only takes place every 4 years, not as a daily part of life.

Democracy is not a system where the majority can do whatever it wants. It is only a democracy if it can protect and respect the rights of every voter.

Which part is false? What fact are you objecting in his post? I think what he has written is easily verifiable so there is no need to trust him or me. As far as I have checked they are accurate.

As I understand, you have been protesting freely with the support from military, judiciary (it looks that recently Kemalist supreme court tried to close AKP while it had a majority in Turkish parliament and had just won another democratic election), and media for years and you still haven't been able to even stop the increase of AKP's popularity. Is that true? Is his claim that you are minority false?

We are not minority! (It does not matter that we are the minority or not though, a true democracy has to respect the life of all minorities.) In the last election, his party gained 50% of the votes, not 80% or 90%. Unfortunately, our election system is flawed so that they can get the majority in the parliament to pass any vote they want. As an example of the flaw in the system, votes of parties who get votes below 10% do not get counted (which effected Kurdish minority).

Now, let me refute part by part:

> Turkey was ruled by ultra-nationalist ultra-secular militarist groups for decades.

> You have to know that the length of Turkish governments before AKP to get a feeling of its significance: a few months!

These are patently false. Yes, there were coups but after each coup, right wing ancestors of AKP were in power "majority" of time. If you look at elections, in Turkey, in almost elections, right wing got around 60-70% of votes. The only left wing politician who was in power was Inonu and Ecevit, the former being a figure from the Independence War, the latter a politician who was embraced by people left and right for his honest, non-corrupt personality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Prime_Ministers_of_Turk...

1950-60 Adnan Menderes, The Democratic Party: Pro-American, Islam-leaning right wing party. 1965-71 Suleyman Demirel: Justice Party. Right wing party who declared itself as the successor of The Democratic Party. 1975-77: Suleyman Demirel: One more time. 1979-80: Suleyman Demirel: One more time! 1983-89: Turgut Ozal: ANAP. Right wing, pro-capitalist party. 1989-91: Mesut Ozal: Took place of Turgut Ozal, who became the President. 1991-93: Suleyman Demirel. One more time 1993-96: Tansu Ciller: Took place of Suleyman Demirel, who became the President. 1996: Mesut Yilmaz 1996-1997: Necmettin Erbakan. Pro-Islamist, anti-capitalist, right wing party. Current PM Erdogan was the mayor of Istanbul from his party. 2002-2003: Abdullah Gul. Current President, who was then head of AKP since Erdogan was in jail.

> Watch Erdogan's victory speech after winning the last election in which AKP further increased its share of votes. His attitude was completely humble and reconciliatory.

That speech never materialized, as can be exemplified by the use of tear gas against protestors today.

> The problem is that the support base of AKP is not the western oriented seculars, it is the conservative majority who didn't have a voice in politics for decades

Not true, as you can see, what Erdogan calls as his ancestors, Menderes, Ozal and Erbakan were in power. What happened is middle-right wing evaporated, and AKP got their votes since they were proposing a capitalist agenda as well. In other words, right wing was majority in Turkey all the time, but the votes were distributed among several parties. When the economic situation became so bad in 2002, the public protested these parties, and voted for the only prominent new right-wing party at the time. The economic success came due to two reasons: 1- The "technocrat", Kemal Dervis who was brought in the late times of the former gov't made sound economic policies, which the new gov't applied. 2-They sold most of the state owned assets and gained money. See for example Turkish Telekom, the only PSTN providers, who also operated majority of the internet in Turkey. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Telekom

AKP then used its position as the leading party to strengthen its position in the next elections.

> Rather the secular minority demanding more than their fair share.

Fair share? As in, right to live according to their wishes, and not that of AKP?

> I mean they objected to the removal of the ban on head-scarves for students attending university and consider it Islamization of Turkey (a country where over 70% of women wears head-scarf).

Not true. This is lumping all secular people into one big pot. Yes, there were people who objected this, but the fundamental promise of secularity is to form rules so that each person can live his religion freely, that no religion is higher against the rule.