The gates of the temple of the Roman God Janus have become wide open and war has been launched on Recep Tayyip Erdogan by his numerous opponents on the squares of the main cities, inside his party, and in the regional capitals. These gates were closed for around a decade, as it was done by the Romans in times of peace. Now, the Ottoman Sultan aspect has come to prevail over the democratic aspect of the Justice and Development Party leader, one who was always perceived by the American ally as being an "archetype of democracy" for the Arab world, especially during the times of change sweeping the region. Ever since he came to power in 2002, he tried to enhance Turkey's Eastern dimension at the expense of its Western one, after he became sick and tired of the conditions and complications placed by the European countries before his country's accession to their Union. Nonetheless, this shift will not go down easily. In the past, Turkey was given a name going in line with its geographic nature, i.e. that it is two-faced like Janus, with one face overlooking the East and another the West. This duplicity often caused confusion, ever since Kemal Atatürk ordered his people to take off their fez, put on a hat and use Latin letters. Today, his successor seems wishful to restore the other face of the past. Erdogan, along with his party, achieved successes which were lengthily tackled, to the beat of the "zero-problem" policy advocated by Ahmet Davutoğlu. He thus transformed Turkey into a key player – more or less - throughout the region. He also competed with Iran at the level of the Palestinian cause, ever since he addressed harsh criticism to Shimon Peres during the Davos Economic Forum and severed the ties with Israel following its monstrous attack on the Marmara ship. Moreover, Syria opened the gate of the "fertile crescent" before him, and he started to herald the launching of an economic crescent including his country, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq. But he did not settle for this gate and sought the establishment of friendly relations with Iran, in order to turn the historical pages of hostility between the two countries ever since the sixteenth century and the war between Sultan Selim and Shah Ismail the Safavid. In addition, he mediated at the level of the nuclear file and did not leave one location in which the Ottomans ever set foot without returning to it. He headed to Libya, Yemen and Somalia and appeared wishful to remove Turkey's other face, i.e. the European one. On the other hand, he managed to contain the repercussions of the crisis which rocked global economy five years ago and was able to book a set in the G20. A lot can also be said about the development, prosperity, and improvement of the living conditions he secured for his citizens. A decade after the Justice and Development Party came to power, one may say that the protests in Taksim Square and one of the major Turkish cities, caused great damage to Erdogan's image. "People of Turkey have spoken: We will not be oppressed!" This is in short what was featured in an advertisement carried by the New York Times on Friday. The signatories of this ad summarized what was happening in Taksim Square among others by saying: "Over the course of Prime Minister Erdogan's ten-year term, we have witnessed a steady erosion of our civil rights and freedoms. Arrests of numerous journalists, artists, and elected officials and restrictions on freedom of speech, minorities' and women's rights all demonstrate that the ruling party is not serious about democracy". They thus called for the "end of police brutality, free media, open democratic dialogue and an investigation of the government's recent abuse of power, which has led to the loss of innocent lives." This ad's depiction of the protests resembles the one facing the ruling political Islam in Tunisia and Egypt. Until two years ago, it appeared that the Arab Muslims were the only ones resisting the formation of governments led by religious parties, as it is the case in the Islamic Republic of Iran and to some extent in Turkey where the Muslim Brotherhood calmly attempted to dismantle the secular regime established by Atatürk in 1923. Hence, they did not hesitate to address strong blows to the military institution and some of its leaders who acted as the guardians of this regime. And during the past few years, the government's decision aimed to contain freedoms and control people's private lives, which fueled the recent protests and mobilized half the Turkish society which rejected – and is still rejecting – the imposition of the religious parties' patterns over their behavior, lives and clothing. Consequently, Turkey appeared to be following in the footsteps of the Arab states resisting the authority of the MB and what they refer to as being their attempt to impose tyranny in the name of religion, thus producing results similar to the ones imposed by the tyrannical regimes on their citizens. Erdogan for his part was getting ready – and is still getting ready – to amend the constitution to assume the presidential post, by limiting all the prerogatives to the presidency of the republic in whose elections he will run next year. The youth who triggered the protests on Taksim Square were soon joined by the supporters of the opposition Republican People's Party, the secularists, liberals and businessmen, most of whom are from the middle class who used to vote in favor of Erdogan and not his party. This made him feel like he was behind the Justice and Development Party's advancement ahead of the remaining political parties. In the meantime, other religious parties also protested against the limitation of public freedoms and the monopolization, arrogance and tyranny practiced by the prime minister, while Alawite blocs did not conceal their disgruntlement vis-à-vis the policy adopted by the government towards the Syrian crisis. There is a consensus over the fact that Erdogan ignored all his opponents, who felt completely marginalized and unable to perform any efficient role in the face of his minesweeper. These opponents thus registered their objections on many occasions, without them being heard by the prime minister who believed that the trust placed in him by the voters during the last elections, and for two consecutive terms before that, constituted a carte blanche. As a result, he completely disregarded the opposition and considered that the majority which stood by him allowed him to undertake practices, measures and decisions without any monitoring, knowing that the political game and the attempt to change the state's identity cannot ignore any other political power, regardless of its size. Naturally, this does not mean that the party has started to decline; but rather that Erdogan's course is taking a downward turn from the summit. The protests on the squares in Istanbul, Ankara and Izmir among other cities, will not put a quick end to his political course. But they definitely portend Turkey's entry into a stage of confrontation that is overdue. Hence, the man will no longer act freely, without any regard for the middle class which was reassured by his economic and political performance during his two previous terms, and is now concerned by his inclination to inject more religiousness in the daily lives of the citizens and the school curricula among others, and to limit the freedoms of those who disagree with him. It was expected to see the army rising against all the measures that affected its leaders throughout years and prevented it from performing any political role after it used to be the strongest actor since the establishment of the republic, whether directly or from behind the scenes. And there is no doubt that the pressures and conditions put forward by the European institutions to accept Turkey's membership in the European Union helped Erdogan lead the military back to their barracks and pave the way before the parties' resumption of the democratic game. Hence, it would be too soon to expect the party's decline. Moreover, those knowledgeable about the Turkish experience know that Erdogan himself will win any upcoming elections as long as his party is relying on a base which granted him half the votes in the last elections in 2011. However, he will see chances of his opponents inside the party increasing, at the head of whom is his partner in the establishment of the Justice and Development Party, President Abdullah Gul, who is considered by many political circles to be more moderate and who had a different opinion than the prime minister in regard to the current protests. And he was not the only one. Indeed, the deputy prime minister presented his apologies to the protesters, while many deputies belonging to the majority fear the amendments which the prime minister intends to introduce to the constitution, in a way combining most of the authorities in the president's hands and marginalizing the other constitutional institutions. If the Justice and Development Party does not show flexibility in dealing with the protests, far away from the arrogant tone and accusations cast by Erdogan against the protesters, the country will head towards further political turmoil. This will definitely undermine all that was accomplished by Turkey's Islamists, whether on the economic level or at the level of restoring their country's role and position in the Arab and Islamic region and on the international scene. Moreover, this will cause the party to lose the image which many Arab and Islamic communities view as being an archetype of political Islam with a modern and updated perception of society, as well as an archetype of Islam's marriage with democracy. This had made the American administration recognize that Turkey's democracy is not a second-degree democracy, i.e. closer to the European one than to the Middle Eastern or Arab one. Therefore, if the comparison by some Turkish journalists of Erdogan's statements to the protesters to those of President Hosni Mubarak or President Bashar al-Assad to their oppositionists is true, it refers to his arrogant ways and not his legitimacy to govern, one which he earned via the ballot boxes and not through Arab-style referendums! But the democracy praised by Washington is not perceived the same way by European Commissioner for Enlargement and European Neighborhood Policy Štefan Füle who stated: "Excessive use of force by police against these demonstrations has no place in such a democracy!" And what was not blatantly expressed by President Barack Obama's administration was not concealed by American diplomatic circles which noted "the dictatorial turn of the Turkish authorities" and "Erdogan's Putinist tendency!" The United States was pleased with Turkey's return to its lap and that of NATO against the backdrop of the Syrian crisis complications and repercussions on the Turkish domestic scene. However, there is no doubt that it is afraid of Ankara's loss of its vital role at the level of many files, at the head of which come the consequences of the war on Syria, the future of the Palestinian cause, the renewed relations with Israel, the position towards Iran's nuclear file and expansion in the region, and the alliance with a number of Arab states in light of these files and other heated issues. Some Turks are wondering: Will the person who was able to solve a chronic and critical problem such as that of the Kurds, thus ending three decades of fighting which claimed the lives of 40,000 people, be unable to solve a problem on a square in Istanbul?! The answer remains in Taksim Square, on the arena of the Justice and Development Party, and in Erdogan's discourse.
