Sometimes it is good to repeat things. Considering the debates around the veil and school nowadays and the given references to secularism, it becomes significant to get rid of the political authority obsession and talk about the progress the country has achieved so far.

I noted in my article yesterday: When we check our environment and find that if radical movements, under the hands of which Islam has turned into a tool of revolt and objection, are keeping a distance away from Turkey in all the senses then are we not partly indebted to AK Party for this political experience besides our traditional background?

However, it is impossible for some people to perceive this and realize the changing factors that this hypothesis underlies.

            How come?

 Well, the subconscious of the average modernist interprets the situation of the country in this way: “This Muslim country is governed by a secular and democratic regime. However, the existence of this secularism can only persist against the Islamic pressure with the help of a military force. This situation, that is, the inevitable and helpful role of the army lowers the quality of democracy. However, this is the sociological and political fate of turkey.”

         Such an awkward model.

To what extent do you think that this perspective, which reduces the society to an ideological structure and views the possibility of change only under political boundaries, can actually view the fact?

         In no way!

That`s why what turkey has gone through for the last 15 years is a gigantic leap. This gigantic leap is the underlying reason that explains why the AK Party under the arrows of criticisms won all the elections in the last 12 years and that it will win the upcoming ones.

That is the point that some people are missing because they are too much stuck up with certain authority-based, arbitrary implementations and conservative practices; thus, they are not willing to understand anything.

              Turkey made headway in two laps.

The first is the ‘political’ process, in which a new and different 'social' led the way and which was accompanied with the dynamism as an outcome of the fact that politics was dominated by society.

The second is that instead of an 'individual' which uses a system which is embellished only with one-sided, value-producing rationality, consisting of discrepancies and contradictory interests, what is introduced to us is re-individualizaton which melts various value systems simultaneously and therefore yields a multi-dimensional and thus a pluralistic individualization process, speaking more correctly, a personification process in which an `individual is evolving into a human`

The soil on which we live produces a bilateral development in three encountering phases and the significance of each encounter is as follows: it is produced by the society, the prominence of the social and its domination over the political.

The encounters can be grouped as such follows:

                     Religious – secularist encounter

                     Identity – history encounter

                     Military – civil encounter

The religious-secularist encounter is the most significant motor of initiating various value systems for co-existence in the same body. A structure in which secular, religious, traditional and modern value systems are consumed by the same individual is a new and important phenomenon.

The identity-history encounter functions as the re-reading of the republican era, the discovery of Non-Muslims and the democraticization of the given identity or it becoming transparent through the 1915 debates.

 The military-civil tension – in parallel with the recent developments – for the first time has exceeded a conflict scene-taking place between the political insight and the military. The country has advanced to a point at which the society began to debate the political role of the army as well as its military roles from the view of the society.

I don`t doubt that even making these remarks would get you labelled as an AK Party mouthpiece in certain circles.

However, the essential problem is that some people, due to a class-oriented level of AK Party defiance or because of their obsession with its certain policies, are not even able to understand this change or they simply view it as regression or mainly as tools of instruments of the authority maintenance.

The new form of the old formula turns up this way.