Turkish political life has always been dynamic. However, political discussions that were had until the early 2000s were all fruitless as they focused on daily issues rather than the structural shortcomings. As the actors, who took part in discussions, were prevented from taking initiatives by pro-tutelage institutions, they yielded no effective results. More importantly, the tension created by the aforementioned motion was used as a justification by the military and other non-political institutions to interfere in the politics.When the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) came into power under the leadership of Erdoğan, the nature of this political motion changed. As opposed to the infertile polarization of the past, this futile dynamism, which left its mark in the political history of the country, turned into a fertile one in which civilian and legitimate actors participated. It is possible to itemize the adventure of this transformation as follows.First, the AK Party got its strength from the public rather than the pro-tutelage institutions that were established to hamper the development of structural policies. Therefore, the AK Party shaped its policies in line with people's expectations instead of the dogmas of the 80-year Kemalist regime. This enabled the AK Party to implement policies that matched the realities and requirements of the day. This move, which allowed politics to get closer to the reality, gave a relevant, contemporary aspect to the social debates. Secondly, as opposed to before 2000, seeing that the political discussions caused structural transformations concerning the characteristics of the regime, people felt the necessity of taking part in the process as an influential actor. The demands of the public such as democratization, demilitarization and integration with the world did not go unanswered. The sphere of influence of the military tutelage and its subsidiaries, which always pose a threat to the politics, was narrowed.Ultimately, all these processes created a political atmosphere in which civil elements competed on equal footing, and the demands and expectations of the people became determinant in shaping the country's politics. As in the case of the Kurdish political movement that had an armed struggle with the Turkish state for 30 years, when it entered the Parliament as a legitimate party, all illegal elements inclined to legitimate politics.In 2014's Turkey, as it is in all institutionalized democratic countries, it is not possible to implement any policies that do not receive its legitimacy from the popular will. Beyond any doubt, this equal, competitive and democratic atmosphere creates a tension among the sections and institutions of the old Turkey. They are strongly resisting the transformation as they lost their privileges. The rehabilitation of the rights of some groups that have so far been underestimated, including religionists, Kurds and minorities, disturbs certain circles in Turkey.The nationalists stand against the use of Kurdish language, as they are obsessed with the anxiety that this may lead to division of country. The removal of obstacles to the rights of labor and education of the women in headscarves is regarded as a threat by the militant secularists.The reconciliation process that was initiated by the government to end the 30-year struggle, which claimed 50,000 lives, disturbs a group in the bureaucracy of the police and judiciary. Some factions regard doing conservative politics with a universal legitimacy, which is a fundamental democratic right of a conservative government, as a luxury.Therefore, it is possible to say that the present dynamism in the political life of Turkey is a necessary process that should be experienced in order to reach a democracy in Western standards. It is very healthy that this discussion is running independently from outside interventions and tutelage.Those who are troubled with the fact that the old, anti-democratic Turkey is going down in history introduce this transformation process to the American and European communities as a great disturbance. They are resorting to manipulations to topple the reformist government, which they cannot overwhelm in election polls through democratic and legitimate means. The foreign readers who are misguided about Turkey by such news outlets as Germany's "Der Spiegel," which support this manipulation and distortion, should ask the following question to themselves: why is the social discussion processes and reforms that allowed the Western countries to reach an effective democracy, regarded as a sign of authoritarianism when it comes to the eastern countries? What would be the level of democracy in Europe today if the European societies had postponed the struggle with pro-status quo groups, in fear that it would trigger tension?