Turkish pathological democracy

The nature of Turkey's democracy is a matter for Turkish citizens to decide, whether it's a presidential system or a strong parliamentary system. The system is not the essential piece for a country to become a democracy. To what degree fundamental freedoms are protected and the existence of the institutions and norms of democracy, headed by equality in front of the law and the supremacy of law principles, are what defines the quality of a democracy.

Apart from fair and just elections, which are also important, is the extent by which a system provides checks and balances that prevent any single individual or any single branch of government from exercising disproportionate influence and ability to rule without consent.

Everyone should respect the right and the ability of Turkish citizens to make informed choices. It's important that everyone in society has an opportunity to make an informed decision. Is there a need for further elaboration? Under what conditions could Turkish citizens make informed decisions? Can it be possible to make informed decisions if a huge section of the media is owned directly or indirectly by the ruling political clan? Or, can such a decision be made if because of the dark veil of fear covering the country from one end to the other, a journalist feels compelled to apply self-censorship in reporting a development or expressing an opinion? However, is it not a reality that democratic governance can function if, through free and unhindered access to information, that is, through freedom of media and freedom of being informed, people are ordained with the capability of informed decisions and preferences? Definitely making informed decisions has become impossible because of curbs on the media and the dictate bombardment of a tall...