The paradox of democracy, or better, the malediction of democracy. Let's create a hypothetical situation. When the National Socialist Party came to power in 1933, it behaved more rational and did not initiate a war. But it still practiced its policies and formed a constitutional order. Within decades, it created a social base that corresponded to at least one-third of society through ideological indoctrination, capital transfer and other means. As conditions changed in Europe after decades, it allowed the foundation of opposition parties. According to the constitution it formed, the approval of at least two-thirds of voters is required to make alterations to the constitution. Through this way they benefited from theses such as: "In democracies, a constitution is altered by conforming to constitutional rules," or, "The state of law is a state in which political ruling power abides by the constitution." And they could close the parties not following those rules on the grounds of the argument that democracies have a right to self-protection.

A political party purporting to change such a system has to convince at least two-thirds of voters or, at least has to reach a majority to that extent in parliament if it obeys the rules of the game. And since this de facto is impossible, the rules actually do not guard democracy, but fascism. Democratic rules of procedure attached to a fascist system protect fascism instead of democracy. When the parties opposing the system could not reach this rate majority, they can resort to two things: A political party that comes to power but cannot reach the required rate of majority has to go on its path with law amendments since it cannot change the constitution. Of course the laws start to go against the constitution after a while since there is no chance to progress reforms despite the current constitution. The unconstitutional norms totally disturb the balance of the system in time. The system only produces crisis. And the burden of the crisis is also laid on the party.

It is not possible to go beyond this circle since it is a must to change this system to achieve ruling power. And coming to power is only possible through democratic methods. In order to come to power through democratic ways, convincing the public and receiving the approval of a certain rate of voters are required. Such a political party has to act according to democratic procedures and conform to the rules of this fascist system in order to change it. What would you do?

The problem in Turkey is no different from this assumption. Turkey also has a constitutional order that was formed based on a political philosophy prevalent in Europe in the 1930s and was only updated with military coups. Changing the constitutional order is only possible through democratic legitimacy and a majority corresponding to at least two-thirds of the voting public. A majority corresponding to three out of five also facilitates a change, but it is both risky and has lower legitimacy, so it might lead to resistance from opposing social groups.

Besides, this ethnocentric, strictly centralist, marginalizing, ideological and antidemocratic order is a little more refined. Along with its own social base, it can also manipulate various social segments according to the problems it creates. For instance, when the system produces a policy against the Sunni majority, it might ally with Alevis and leftist opponents. When an anti-Kurdish policy is made, it can cooperate with the Sunni and Turkish majority. And if a policy is adopted against Alevi minorities, it could have the support of the Sunni majority regardless of ethnic origin. It loses the support of Turks when it addresses the problems of Kurds and vice versa. Political powers wishing to change this order also suffer from this problem because they lose the support of Sunnis when they attempt to resolve the Alevi issue or the support of Alevis and the secular-minded when they try to resolve the problems of the Sunni majority. The list goes on like this. A party definitely has to come to power in democratic elections and remain as the ruling party to resolve this systemic problem.

How could it happen? I guess one should also have a look at Turkey's current situation from this point of view.