For years moderate Islamist movements in the Arab world, mainly the Muslim Brotherhood, have looked at Turkey, under the rule of the Justice and Development Party (AKP), as a model to be admired and emulated. The AKP, headed by the charismatic leader Recep Tayyip Erdogan, was able to preside over Turkey’s economic development while charting a new political course for the country of 76 million. Since taking over in 2002, Erdogan has managed to confront and then sideline Turkey’s powerful generals, who had been entrusted to preserve the country’s secular identity.

In addition to creating the world’s 17th largest economy, Erdogan tried to redefine Turkey’s role and influence in the region, first by pursuing a “zero conflict” policy with its neighbors, but later by reasserting the country’s position on regional issues such as the Arab-Israeli conflict, the Iranian nuclear program, the Kurdish problem and more recently the Syrian uprising. Turkey remains a close ally of the United States and the West, even when chances of joining the European Union (EU) have become feeble.

The success of the AKP — it won just about 50 percent of the votes in the 2011 elections — was due to the dynamic composition of supporters and members. They comprise a coalition of conservative Muslims, economic elite, Anatolian masses, a segment of the Kurdish population and some Turkish nationalists, according to researcher Aaron Stein in a piece published this week in Foreign Policy. Erdogan managed this coalition wisely and was able to stem opponents inside and outside his party.

That is why last week’s protests in Istanbul, Ankara and other towns have been viewed as the first real challenge to Erdogan’s authority that could have dire consequences for him and his party in the long run. Protesters are mainly young non-politicized Turks, with liberal and secular leanings, who oppose Erdogan’s attempts to steer Turkey further to the right that threatens the country’s secular heritage.

They have been joined by labor unions and opposition parties.

While commentators were careful not to describe these protests as a Turkish Spring, there are signs that Erdogan is facing challenges from inside and outside his party. According to Stein, a real tug of war is going on between the AKP’s two wings; a conservative wing following an Islamist program with nationalist/Ottoman values headed by Erdogan, and a more moderate wing with conservative democratic principles that is consistent with an American-style definition of secularism, led by President Abdullah Gul. Under the Gul wing which supports joining the EU, Stein writes, the process would make Turkey more liberal, which would then allow for all people to express themselves more freely.

Initial response to the Taksim protests has underlined the differences between the two wings. The prime minister accused the protesters of being anarchists and of drinking beer in mosques and insulting women in headscarves. He also accused foreign elements of sabotaging Turkey. “There are those who cannot stomach Turkey becoming greater and stronger,” ... “They don’t want any investments in Turkey,” Erdogan told his supporters this week. He reminded Turks that his party had won three elections and two referendums and that the future is decided in the ballot box.

But President Gul’s reaction was different. He called on the government to talk to the protesters and hear them out. “Democracy is not just about voting,” said Gul. “If there are different opinions, different situations, different points of view and dissent, there is nothing more natural than being able to voice those differences.”

The protests come at a sensitive time for Erdogan. He wants to keep his party united as he enforces a plan to amend the constitution to increase the power of the presidency in time for him to replace Gul in 2015 or before.

In fact Turkish democracy is not the model that many in the Arab world extol. The violent reaction to the protests in the first few days underlined the government’s impatience with opposition.

According to Steven Cook and Micheal Koplow, in a joint article on Turkish democracy in Foreign Policy, Turkey under the AKP has become the textbook case of a hollow democracy. They write that the AKP, under Erdogan, has turned Turkey into a single-party state.

The contrast between the Turkish experiment under Erdogan and post-uprising states in the Arab world cannot be missed. In Egypt and Tunisia the Muslim Brotherhood is now in power and the Turkish model is the one that it is looking to copy not only economically but politically and socially as well.

It is important to note that decades of secularization in Turkey have been instrumental in producing the AKP and its much celebrated model. Still as Erdogan now faces the other 50 percent of his nationals who are fearful of his program, we are seeing the same kind of opposition now forming in Egypt and Tunisia. How Turkey’s strong man will deal with this latest challenge may affect the outcome of nascent political experiments in these two countries and beyond.

Email: [email protected]