The example of Turkey's developments in democracy, human rights and economics over the last decade to the Arab world has multiple aspects. Turkey has provided the religious with freedom of faith and conscience, and has been integrating into the global structure via efforts to join the European Union. While meeting the West's standards of democracy on the one hand, Turkey has also a developing and prospering economy on the other. If democracy had been realized without development and prosperity, Turkey's example may not have been so appealing to the Arab world. When democratic standards are realized together with prosperity, there results a stronger impression and greater appeal.
The West could have reacted to the Arab Spring in two ways. Firstly, it could have responded to the demands of the middle class that created the Arab Spring for "a better life and more democracy." It could have supported the attempts at democracy in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya, despite the difficulties. The synergy created by the Arab Spring could have become part of a new global democratic approach and experience. The alternative was to continue to support Arab dictators, and indirectly set the ground for the terrorist activities and extremism that feed on the opposition to their regimes. Consciously or unconsciously, the West chose the second way.
Although democracy and human rights are values prompted by Western civilization to the world, in practice West governments have taken to supporting dictators — and thus terrorism, as the inevitable result. In contrast, the Turkish government has taken a position supporting democracy from the first days of the Arab Spring. Certainly, this does not mean that the West has created terrorism. But it has set the ground for terrorism by taking sides with dictatorships, such as those in Egypt and Syria, instead of taking sides with the people and their demands for democracy.
The democratization plan for Syria was almost completed at the Syria's Friends meeting held when Hillary Clinton was the U.S. Secretary of State. The transition to a democratic government in Syria did not require a big effort; a democratic revolution was possible by providing reasonable weapon support to the opposition groups.
The main claim from Iran was that al-Qaida would dominate if Bashar Assad was ousted, and in time this claim turned into standard political discourse credited by the Obama administration. Then DAESH came to the fore – probably because the concerns regarding al-Qaida lacked credibility. I don't know how much countries such as Great Britain, Israel and Iran have been involved in the creation of DAESH, but there is almost no intelligence agency that has not played a part in their growth.
The second threat is much more real, and the presence of DAESH can be used for multiple purposes; allowing everyone that does not fight with Assad to stay in the region for another 40 years, and Iran with the opportunity to occupy Arab and Sunni regions (the sociology and traumas that created DAESH cannot be denied).
In Syria, Russia, Iran and Hezbollah sided with the Assad regime. The Democratic Union Party (PYD), a Stalinist group that opposes the existence of all others, also sides with the Assad regime and, strangely, America supports them, together with Russia. Significantly, France stood against Assad, but is now altering its agenda because of the Paris attacks.
The only party that wants democracy in Syria is the Syrian public, represented by the Free Syrian Army and supported by Turkey; and they face the prospect of massacre by Russia and Iran.
Turkey seems to be the only country that wants democracy in Syria. All others are bombing Syrian civilians under the guise of fighting DAESH. It is very sad that those who want democracy are losing against those who are supporting dictatorship, and this is because the Western alliance is not aware of what it wants to do regarding democracy.