Conducting studies on a "developing" country as a Western researcher is both a sort of divine grace and a curse. Once you finish your work and release your book or article, you are recognized as an "expert" on that subject and as a result, are invited to every meeting concerning that country. You are expected to issue updated information and analyses even though your interest in the subject may not be as intense as it used to be. Also, it is not unknown for those "developing" countries to undergo rapid and qualitative transformations, especially in the face of changes in external factors. In other words, a country might suddenly undergo a metamorphosis and you might shift your interest to other fields. But still, you are expected to enlighten people by giving interviews to newspapers, appearing as a talking head on TV programs and attend meetings.

Such expectations, which would make any ethical researcher feel a little awkward, are a godsend for many second-rate scientists, because one can continue to be an expert only by dealing in rumors once one's first book is published. Unfortunately, it is not possible to come up with a useful analysis by repeating worn-out findings. It is much easier to create a popular rhetoric that sounds reasonable to your audience by first taking their concerns and presumptions into consideration. And this is exactly what is happening now.

Nowadays, the presumption of Turkey is that the country is advancing along a path of authoritarianism and moderate Islamization. These two aspects complete each other since the government imposes Islam on the public through authoritarianism, and Islam already has an authoritarian component. This statement sounds "normal" to Westerners. And when they include various quotes by President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, we come up with a very "objective" evaluation. This perspective does not only propound the view that the government increasingly uses authoritarian methods and pronounces Islamic values, it also detects the "essence" of the object it is examining. However, there is a wide gap between these two ideas, just like the distance between science and fantasy.

In Turkey, the government's use of authoritarian methods and its embrace of Islamic values are being practiced under specific conditions and in accordance with a specific target. If someone does not comprehend the effects of those conditions and the function of the targets, they can only access superficial and rough observations. And Western experts are perplexed following this observation since they must then answer this question: How could the ruling party receive 50 percent of the nation's votes if it really is so authoritarian and Islamic? This number demonstrates that even those who do not regard themselves as Muslim and who do not approve authoritarianism also support the party.

Unfortunately, the "creativity" of experts fails at this point. The explanations they come up with are based either on the idea that the Turkish public is being deceived by government conspiracies or due to the ill-gotten gains people have accrued thanks to the government. The second option does not seem realistic since we are talking about at least 22 million people. We cannot claim that the government helps so many people to benefit in this way. Perhaps then we might think that the real explanation could be related to a sort of "backwardness" of the Turkish public. How can you explain one person who is hostile to everyone receiving 50 percent of the votes?

Expert opinions cannot operate like this. Expertise should be based on examining the background of what is visible and under what conditions and with which targets the actors make their decisions. Otherwise, we cannot understand the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) or Erdoğan. And we cannot comprehend why those who do not subscribe to authoritarianism and Islamization voted for his party.