“There is a better Turkey with European standards,” is a remark made by Norwegian Minister of Defense Espen Barth Eide to Republican People's Party (CHP) leader Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu at the European Congress of Socialist Parties held in Brussels.

Because he is a main opposition leader, the CHP leader concludes that this remark that praises Turkey also praises the ruling party. For this reason, at the panel on the Arab Spring, he argues with the Norwegian minister at the event, saying, “Our leaders want to imitate the Arab leaders.” Acting more like a conservative politician than a socialist minister, the Norwegian minister drives Kılıçdaroğlu into a corner by saying, “A Turkey reconciled with its history and Muslim heritage is more European than the Westernization initiative based on Kemalist authoritarian methods.”

This is a very important discussion that takes the two-century-long history of the Muslim communities alongside Europe as an axis. Authoritarian pro-Western rulers, or Muslim administrations reconciled with their traditions? It becomes evident that the Norwegian minister places the Arab Spring on a democratic and pro-freedom ground. The dilemma between the repressive pro-Western administrations and the Muslim people has been the main dynamic of the two-century Muslim communities. Overcoming this dilemma is a great success for the entire world, with the exception of a few repressive rulers dominant in Muslim societies.

Kılıçdaroğlu's response to the Norwegian minister, “Our leaders want to imitate the Arab leaders,” is like a caricature of this reversed history. At a time when the Arab world takes rule in Turkey as a model, a reverse argument is consistent with this controversial history because the CHP represents the repressive approach to ruling in Turkey's history. Kemalism, which the Norwegian minister criticizes, is the name of the dominant ideology of this authoritarian administration represented by the CHP. It is a sort of Turkish Baathism.

At the heart of this contradiction lies the despair of the democratic demands and the societies seeking to survive on their social balances and traditions vis-à-vis the minority dicta groups. This despair is in fact the product of the Western world, which cooperated with these dicta rulers rather than their societies. In Muslim communities, the pro-Western minorities did not acquire power and maintain authoritarian rules. Strong minorities adopted a pro-Western style in an attempt to move to power and maintain authoritarian rule because the West extended support to these administrations as long as they acted in harmony with them. These minorities, which were alienated from their peoples, have remained in power for a long time by virtue of the support the West extended. Is it not the West's fault that a democratic popular movement in Algeria was eliminated 22 years ago by a dicta administration the West supported through bloody methods?

The nine-year Justice and Development Party (AK Party) rule proved to the entire world that a Muslim political administration that considers its roots and traditions could generate peace and stability for itself, as well as the West. Was the AK Party's path not the major factor that cleared the way for the Arab Spring?

In 1839, Klemens Wenzel von Metternich, then foreign minster of the Austrian Empire, sent a letter to Mustafa Rashid Pasha on the Tanzimat reforms. In this letter, he basically argued that these reforms should be consistent with the traditions of the Muslim and Turkish society. Metternich, who should be regarded as one of the leading architects of present-day Europe, underlined that only an Ottoman state embracing its historical roots could become part of Europe through the reforms it would introduce.

After a long time, in fact, this is what the AK Party proved by turning to Europe. Both Metternich and the Norwegian minister recall the same point. The AK Party remains subscribed to this principle and leads a Muslim world that promises peace and stability for the world.