As a fellow liberal Turk, I found Soli's analysis of AKP's ascendancy in Turkish politics largely fair and accurate. AKP's enabled stewardship of the economy handed them the electoral victory. It should be noted, however, that the very existence of a secularist tradition is itself a strong argument for economic success, albeit not sufficient by itself. Turks of any walk of life are good consumers first and foremost.

The AK's land slide victory is an historical milestone, a significant socio-political development and an unequivocal proof that Islam and liberal democracy are compatible. The AK is a savvy and wise lot and they won the elections strictly on the merits of their performance: ethics and credibility, economic and political achievement especially their full commitment to liberal democracy.

This is really a fresh breath of air not for Turkey only but for the entire Arab and Muslim world to emulate the good Turkish example.

The Attaturk model failed miserably: since 1923, it achieved nothing but a secular dictatorship based on anti-religion-where as a true liberal democracy as the case is with European/Western model is based not only on separation of church and state but the protection and freedom of religion. Clearly this victory is a proof that a Muslim can be both a Muslim and a democrat.

The AK has done in a few years what the secular military editorship could not do at the barrel of a gun for over eighty years. AK implemented true liberal democracy-meaning separation of Mosque and state and yet a protector of the freedom of religion. The so called secularists were so insecure they made an issue of even what a woman puts on her head and not what is inside it.

The Turkish military establishment is a mortal threat to true liberal democracy in Turkey. The AK victory should once and for all put an end to the military's interference in politics-they should, as the case is in any true democracy, stay in their barracks and receive orders from the elected civilian government.

If European intransigence persists in blocking Turkey's membership to EU, Turkey should turn its face towards the Muslim world particularly its Arab neighbors and jointly create such a productive synergy.

The US continues to play a double game: it blindly supports the racist jewish theocracy in Palestine against those who resist its 60-year occupation and call them terrorists but not when it comes to Kurdish terrorists who have no excuse for their terrorism in Turkey as they can freely vote-unlike the case with israel who keeps millions of Palestinians in a big concentration camp called West Bank/Gaza. This is called self-defense for the zionist state and it is ok but not for Turkey when it tries to chase the Kurdish terrorists in hot pursuit-noting that Turkey stood shoulder to shoulder with the US/West for 50 years during the cold war.

As an American with an interest in Turkey but without much solid knowledge past the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, I read articles like this because I am trying to understand more fully what appears to be a vibrant and compelling culture and society.

Please believe that not all of us want to understand other countries merely in order to manipulate them. I would not argue that many nations upon which U.S. foreign policy becomes focused do not end up better off. And yet, I do not think that hoping Americans stop taking an interest in other countries, especially those outside of the developed west, is a useful response. We need every American to consider it a duty to be informed and make an effort to understand others before passing judgment or making political/policy decisions.

I personally find extreme secularism in some EU countries (France's ban on the headscarf in public schools comes to mind) to be equally troubling as the military-enforced secularism in Turkey which has appeared to marginalize most of its people. On the other hand, I cannot imagine that a radical Islamist state would be any better at representing as complex and heterogeneous a society as Turkey's. I enjoy following Turkey's politics because the cultural shifting that is underway shows promise of settling into a model that truly could be held up as a positive example to nations across the globe.

(A small response to Ben Graham): You are right about the litmus tests. There is, however, a point to consider for all readers: AKP did not come out of the blue before the recent elections. It has been in power for more than four years. It can even be said that they were more powerful in the parliament than they are now. All the litmus tests that you have mentioned have been done, and as far as I could see, AKP passed all of them. For example, five years ago, the number of people who were imprisoned against freedom of speech were about 300; now, there is none. Before the elections, the patriarch of the Armenian Church in Istanbul clearly supported AKP for its liberal policies. Supporters of the idea that secularism is at risk failed to produce any evidence from what AKP has done in the last five years.
And lastly, a note: AKP's leader, Prime Minister Erdogan, never said or even implied that AKP is an Islamic or Islamist party. He even expressed that they are not a right-wing party. He said, they are at "the center of the community".

Thank you Mr. Ozel for the article. I hope that your opinions are sound.

What would give me discomfort, if I were a Turk who wishes the separation of mosque and state, are the following questions. Will a ruling Islamic political party favor, promote, or impose religious thought and behavior on its citizens? What will happen to citizens who criticize those who act in the name of Islam or criticize a text of the Koran? Will there be self-censorship by citizens who fear a violent response by those who act in the name of Islam, be they private citizens or state representatives? Will there be an independent judiciary that protects the rights of the press and individuals in these circumstances?

These anti-clerical rights currently exist in Turkey in large part due to the de-Islamization efforts of the founder of your republic, Kemal Attaturk.

The ultimate litmus test as to whether Turkey will remain a moderate Islamic country (by definition a country that separates religion from acts of state) will likely be the treatment of secular Muslims who object to the introduction of Islamic practices and perspectives as part of state activities.

The initial litmus test, however, will be the AKP's treatment of Jews in Turkey and in Israel. Traditionally, that relationship has been sound (e.g., the welcoming of Jews expelled from Spain, allowing the massive sales of land to returning Jews in what is now Israel during the time of the Ottoman empire, and the good relations with Israel). If the AKP wishes scapegoats, it will find them nearby in Istanbul and Tel-Aviv, and that action will provide some insight as to whether this AKP regime is moderate or not. If, and a big if, so done to the Jews, then the secular Muslim Turks will be next.

My best wishes as you are at the vortex of a politcal-religious experiment in your country. Hopefully the conflicting demands will be handled with tolerance.

hmm, watching Al Jazeera coverage on the night of the elections, one of the Turkish guest commentators could not repress his glee at the inevitable -- according to him -- constitutional reforms to make Turkey more Islamic. "They have it drafted it out already. It's a done deal," he said.

I personally doubt that these elections are NOT about secularism's survival. In fact, I see them as one of the last nails in the coffin of secularism, and I don't necessarily blame Erdogan or even AKP for its demise. It's just demographics.

Sectors of society where men decide who their women may have sex with (and whom to kill when they disobey), what size cloth they have to put on their head, and whether or not they can work or study, reproduce like rabbits, 12 or 18 children to a family. Meanwhile, those who don't treat women as chattel have self-exterminating birth rates.

So, religious Turks have been pushing, from east to west, to the point where the only remaining option for people on the sliver of the Egean coast - the only area that voted secular -- is to start swimming to Greece...

This election was, as they say, the tipping point. In 10 years, we may see a candidate come to power denouncing Erdogan as a puppet of the West, a sell-out infidel, not really Islamic enough for a population that has gathered enough confidence in its regligiousness to put an end to this blip in history, this fantasy of Ataturk. Make Turks into Europeans? Come on, seriously...

Turkish people are not intrinsically democratic in that they need a strong figure to tell them what to do, most effectively under threat of physical violence. Whomever holds power will be obeyed, and if the power shifts to Islam (a process that is being accelerated thanks to the European Union accession process and to the foreign policy of the U.S., who will take an ally at any cost), well, then that's who they will obey.

No doubt recent elections in Turkey were about the satisfactory economic performance of the AK party but other factors should not be overlooked. AK party represents the culture, way of life and customs of the millions of Turks while the so called secular parties and the establishment represents western values.
Turkey represents a good example that an Islamic party can combine progress and welfare in its program and can wriggle out of the clutches of the vested interests of the establishment. This example is relevant for Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan and Algeria - countries where Islamic groups are mature and strong enough to set another example as that of Turkey.

I just want to quickly say thank you for providing some perspective on the matter. Before reading this I might have considered the question your comments regard as fair and useful. I hope more people take to heart that we can be too caught up in our views to wonder whether our questions imply reasonable truths.

When explaining Justice and Development Party (AKP) you are saying "The vote revealed the AKP as the only party whose support is not confined to a specific region or social class;.." and I agree with that.

But when it comes to explaining Nationalist Action Party (MHP) you are suggesting that they got only xenophobic votes.

I think this statement is a very unfair, unfortunate and anti-democratic one.

Everybody should try to avoid elienating people because of the parties they vote for. All the parties are part of the democracy whether you like or dislike.