[kaanski]

I would argue that the although the military like to paint themselves as guardians of democracy they don’t exactly have a great track record.

The 1980 coup banned all political parties, all trade unions and the Kurdish language. They then “democratised” the country by only allowing parties that were junta approved, two of which were established directly by the junta themselves, to participate in elections.

This is not to mention the hundreds of thousands of people arrested, hundreds of thousands denied passports, tens of thousands killed either directly, in custody or through capital punishment.

Turkiye today does not have a “failed system” because there are no coups they have a system which is recovering from coups.

I’m not an Islamist, I don’t support Erdogan. A large number of Turks don’t.

But the paternalist idea that Turks are unable to govern themselves without violent takeovers and reprisals for the crime of voting for politicians they agree with is not good for the country and is not democratic.

Edit

“Dictatorship by majority” as you describe it is the definition of a democracy. The majority dictate the policy of the country. Unless my definition is wrong.

Edit 2

Claiming coups “were a feature of their democratic system” is an oxymoron and something I’m almost shocked to hear in a non satirical sense.

Until you can convince me that locusts are a feature for crops you won’t convince me that coups can be a feature of democracy.