Let us remember the facts before delving into this seemingly unending debate:

The AK Party governments eliminated the military's influence over civilian politics, which considering Turkey went through four military coups in the past, was a giant leap toward democratization.

Furthemore, it was Recep Tayyip Erdoğan who made it possible for his party's voter base to look beyond narrow nationalism. Thus the government was able to give back the confiscated properties of non-Muslim foundations, put Alevism in textbooks and address the Kurdish question through reforms. This made it possible for the AK Party to venture a reconciliation process with the PKK to hopefully close a dark chapter in Turkey's history that cost over 40,000 lives.

Erdoğan the reformer, however, also happens to be an observant Muslim who, in a sense, resembles Europe's Christian Democrats or U.S. Republicans. For instance, he voiced his opposition to abortion a few times even though his party never passed a law to ban abortion. Last I checked, being on the pro-life side of the debate, was within the confines of freedom of speech.

As a Muslim, Erdoğan also opposes alcohol consumption even though the current law on the sale of alcohol (e.g. no retail sales from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.) is no more restrictive than U.S. regulations and even less restrictive than similar laws in France and Finland.
Now, let's compare Erdoğan's track record against the textbook definition of authoritarian leaders:

Authoritarians are against political pluralism. The AK Party lowered political parties' eligibility criteria for Treasury aid from 10 percent to 3 percent of the votes in elections. New reforms made it easier for citizens to form political parties while making it legal for parties to campaign in their language of choice. The government also pledged to lower the electoral threshold, currently set at 10 percent.

Authoritarians try to create or sustain insurgencies in order to unite his combatants against a single enemy. Erdoğan tries to end an insurgency (the war on PKK) that has lasted for 30 years and which used to serve the purposes of authoritarian military regimes in our past.

Authoritarians tend to conserve the regime as it is. One of Erdoğan's main promises is to change the Constitution which was drafted following the 1980 military coup. Furthermore, it was the current government that took measures against the discriminatory treatment of Kurds and other minorities under the old guard.

Critics often claim that Mr. Erdoğan has a patriachal tone. While not entirely unwarranted, such criticism must take into account that the country's political discourse as a whole operates at a level that renders the prime minister's tone average if not necessary. Just weeks ago, main opposition leader Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu banged his fist on the podium and yelled at a party member who interrupted his speech. In response, the crowd saluted their leader with cheers.

This does not, however, point to a lack of dialogue with opposition groups. Last summer, when urban revolts took place across the country, Erdoğan spent over ten hours with approximately 50 protestors.

While law enforcement resorted to undue violence elsewhere in recent years, we did not witness a similar display from their leadership.
Another valid concern is that the political regime in Turkey may be vulnerable to authoritarianism, simply because the country still lives under the military junta's constitution that opposition proved to be uninterested in challenging. Had the AK Party and the Peace and Democracy Party (BDP) not been alone in their fight to draft a new constitution, the country would have no doubt made yet another stride toward civilian rule and away from patriarchy.