If we consider the fundamental merits of the EU, we would expect the EU to do its best to spread and improve democracy across the world. The EU is supposed to be the nemesis for all dictators and provide the greatest support to those resisting dictatorships.
According to their own remarks, EU leaders and politicians in EU countries are the apostles of democracy who endeavor to protect democracy more than anyone. The EU, which regards itself as the homeland of democracy, alleges that Russian President Vladimir Putin is a "dictator" when Russia and Ukraine are the topic of discussion. However, it destroys all its credibility when it suggests that whoever favors the EU should be in power in Ukraine, even if they are a "dictator."
The situation of the EU becomes even graver when Turkey is in question.
Some circles in the EU criticize President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan for being a dictator, a man who has far more popular support than EU leaders have, and has so far won all the elections he has participated in with great success. But for some reason, they do not name the real dictators who cover their countries in blood.
Even following the Sept. 12, 1980 military coup, which is one of the darkest periods in the history of the Turkish Republic, they did not call the coup leader, Gen. Kenan Evren, a dictator even though he had not been democratically elected. They warmly welcomed him in EU capitals. While they did not call Evren a dictator – a man who ordered the execution of many young people, caused many extrajudicial executions and disregarded democracy, freedom of thought and expression under military oppression – somehow this word is used to describe Erdoğan.
They are so disturbed by Erdoğan that they even supported the Gezi Park conspiracy in Turkey with the hopes of causing another Kemalist junta. They hoped something would come of the efforts of the mafia-esque "parallel structure," which tried to dominate the country by infiltrating state institutions. If such an organization emerged in their own countries, they would automatically exterminate it in a much harsher way than Turkey did. They did not feel any shame while defending an organization that was monitored by their own intelligence and security units. The Turkish public is aware of the fact that they also supported the Dec. 17 and Dec. 25 judicial coup attempts.
They hoped for help from local and presidential elections that were held on March 30, 2014 and August 10, 2014 in Turkey, respectively. They did not abstain from supporting the main opposition Republican People's Party (CHP), which is controlled by the "parallel structure" and represents the Kemalist oligarchy, and the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), which they refer to as "fascist" among themselves and in security reports, only to stand against Erdoğan.
They did not refrain from describing the PKK as an "innocent organization" when Turkey is in question, although the PKK is listed as a terrorist organization even by them.
What can be the source of this fear of Erdoğan among some circles in the EU?
Is it their problematic Western-centric point of view, which assumes that Muslims cannot have a good understanding of democracy, since the EU presents itself as the source of democracy? Why have Erdoğan and the Justice and Development Party's (AK Party) efforts for the democratization of Turkey since 2002 and the level the country has reached as a result so far upset the EU?
Or does it set a "bad example" to the Islamic world as a social, democratic and strong country, which is an illustration of democracy among Muslim countries?
The EU is worried over remarks made by Erdoğan, such as, "The world is bigger than five," and, "All Muslims deserve democracy."
As they have close relations with dictators, sheiks and kings of countries that have been suffering from oppression in the Middle East and in other countries where Muslims have been subjected to pressure for decades, they might be worried about the possibility that their relations, which enable them to settle as many business affairs as they wish, might be undermined.
Aren't those who have problems with Turkey just because the new Turkey wishes for the democratization of the entire Islamic world along with itself and supports democracy movements actually betraying their own standards?
Consider the case of Egypt. They could not accept a democratic Egypt ruled by the democratically elected president, Mohammed Morsi. Addressing Morsi used to mean addressing the Egyptian parliament. But it was easier for them to engage in every kind of dark trading activity with the coup leader, then general and current President Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi, who follows the words of the arms dealers in the EU more obediently.
Selling tanks, aircraft or submarines to a dictator is a "profitable" business. However, the decisions of the agreements one is to make with democratic countries are issued by parliaments. Then one cannot sell whatever one wishes under those circumstances. The traders of the EU are marketing many goods to states in the Middle East and as a result of the good relations they have built with dictators there. A democratic Islamic world is not a profitable marketplace for Europe.
In conclusion, a democratic Islamic world would not guard their interests.
In this respect, Turkey ruins the plans of some circles in the EU with its current position and image. It is undeniable that they do not like Erdoğan precisely for that reason.