Authoritarianism as weakness and a pitiable show of power

Authoritarianism has always been both a "show of power" and an "expression of weakness." The rise of authoritarianism has always been the result of the failure of smooth and peaceful governance; in other words, it has always been an outcome of the "failure to reach consensus" among different interests and views, and of the inability to manage politics without using force and suppression.

It is true that there is also the aspect of accumulating power to enforce authoritarian rule. In some cases, it is a minority of society that captures power by military means; in others, it is the outcome of popular social support which paves the way for the accumulation of power. The neo-authoritarian regimes of recent decades are examples of the latter, and Turkey is a typical case.

The Justice and Development Party (AKP) obtained its power from popular support in three consecutive elections, but failed to use this power to strengthen democratic politics. I do not think that it was a totally deliberate choice and ideological matter, but was rather also the result of failures and weaknesses that led the governing party toward authoritarianism. First of all, the governing party failed to comprehend the complexity and plurality of society in Turkey and underestimated the challenges. The combination of political power, which is firmly based on majority vote, along with not only "reluctance" but also the "inability" to acknowledge challenges, enforced the idea of majority rule, or majoritarianism. Majority rule may seem to be the easiest option of governance for a political party which has no worries about losing social support, but in fact it has its own shortcomings, especially in societies with deep tensions, like Turkey.

That is why democratic governance...