There are many striking similarities between the Turkish current political scene and its British counterpart.Earlier this year, the United Kingdom held a referendum in Scotland about Scottish independence, in response to the demands of the Scottish National Party (SNP). It was a difficult referendum to predict. U.K. politicians and statesmen found themselves helplessly watching their union moving towards the edge of a cliff, and must have felt a little like passengers on a hijacked airplane. The referendum process was entirely legal and within the law, an attempt by the supporters of independence to use the instruments of the state to dismantle the state.The consequences of a referendum are substantial and can be beyond the comprehension of the citizen. This was equally true for the British citizen faced with the dismantlement of his/her country and the citizen of the new, smaller countries who emerge from the rubble of the old union. This was not a time for logic or reasoned arguments, feelings and emotions were running high. Big promises were being made and it was difficult for voters to see the likely consequences of their own actions.On the eve of the referendum, the BBC made a broadcast showing the two possibilities facing the country after the referendum; either the status quo or a completely different set of realities.These included: The break-up of the United Kingdom and the need to look for a new name for the country (or countries). Would the new country remain a Kingdom or would it become a republic, and what would the Queen do? Would the prime minister be an English prime minister or still the PM of Great Britain? What will happen to the national currency? What was the fate of the permanent seat at the United Nation's Security Council reserved for a country that no longer exists? What weight will the new smaller countries carry in international alliances like NATO and the EU? How will the City of London and the "British" economy be affected? Will there be an exodus of foreign investment? Will a visa be required for travel between Scotland and England? Will trains have to stop at the new political boarder?In the end, the Scots chose to remain in the Union despite their many reservations about London rule. Instead, they decided to give their votes to the nationalist party (the SNP) in the following national election that saw 56 SNP members of parliament return to Westminster from Scotland's total of 59 seats. The Scots had a choice between a unitary state that enjoyed a distinguished position amongst nations and their local national demands that could be met within the existing political process. They chose the first option. For the English, the referendum was to be (or not to be) a final blow to the heritage of the empire and the union that created it.The BBC's intervention lasted only a few minutes but may have contributed to a change in how the referendum was perceived by the Scottish voters by opening eyes and focusing attention on the potential results of the referendum away from the emotions of the occasion. The BBC was later accused of political bias in favor of the state and the "No" campaign.The previous elections in Turkey clearly showed the failure of the government - a government that had catapulted the country into the higher echelons of advanced nations - not in terms of a failure to deliver its message to the people, but rather in terms of clarifying the consequences of the removal of the ruling party from office. The national media in the U.K. was biased in favor of the greater national interest. However, any Turkish media outlet that shows any such inclination toward the national interest could still be easily sidelined by accusations of party political bias. At the same time, other media outlets on the other side of the political spectrum continue to play a dangerous game of politics at the expense of the state and in the absence of national print media and broadcast institutions that could defend and advocate the higher national interests and the institutions of the state outside of the constrains of party politics.Turkey was able to watch a real-life, 90-day film about what happens when a national majority government is removed, plunging the country once again into the rigmarole of coalition governments. This moving picture was not produced in studios by technicians working for a biased media company, but was seen in the streets, markets, schools, hospitals and tourist resorts and filmed by ordinary citizens.The dire consequences that the BBC had highlighted in its 10-minute broadcast, were witnessed by the people of Turkey first hand over the 90 days that followed the previous elections. Anyone who could have been previously excused of ignorance or complacency cannot be afforded such an excuse again knowing what we now know about political parties who know only too well how to unseat a government but are incapable of forming one themselves. It is not possible to make excuses for Turkish voters while at the same time admiring Scottish voters for showing that they value a political union based on national interest and nothing else.Turkish citizens know their country better than anyone else. But, like every nation, they have a right to know how their country is viewed by those who live around them during a pivotal period in the development of their modern state. Sometimes, societies - much like individuals - are blind to the familiar.The history of Arab-Turkish co-existence (peoples and not the political entities) in the period since the end of the First World War and the collapse of the Ottoman Empire can be divided into two uneven periods, a long period from 1923 until 2002 and a second much shorter period from 2002 until today. In the first, Turkey failed to add to its inherited common legacy with her Arab neighbors in any significant way and did not register in the Arab consciousness as a major, influential power in the region. Turkish academic or health institutions were not a destination of choice to those seeking to better their lives. Such individuals in the Arab world would have felt that they could enjoy better life chances staying at home. An Arab visitor to Turkey would not have felt that he was in a more advanced or cultured environment and cities like Cairo, Baghdad and Damascus were at least equal in terms of development, services and cultural activities to most Turkish cities.How things have changed, since 2002. If we want to borrow an Arab analogy, it is not unreasonable to suggest that the success of the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) in gaining power in 2002 was like the discovery of oil in the Arab world. Just as it is completely natural and reasonable to describe certain Arab societies in terms of a pre-oil and a post-oil era, it is equally natural (looking from the outside) to talk about Turkey in terms of a pre- and a post- AK Party period. It is just as difficult for a Turkish youth today to think of their life and wellbeing without the influences of post-Justice and Development Turkey, as it is for him to imagine certain Arab cities without their modern skyscrapers and driverless Metro trains.This second period represents a re-discovery of the self and a rejuvenation of the common language of communication in the region. With her economic, cultural, and political renaissance, Turkey today represents the last, vital, multi-cultural, multi-ethnic pluralistic state in a region ravaged by what appears to be an unstoppable nationalistic, sectarian tide. Turkey is the last example of a successful functional state in the region.Of course no one is better able to judge one's own successes and failures, but only a fool would ignore the dangers of contagion when living in such an environment.Arab societies today mourn the loss of past successes and their newly found place in the wilderness. Modern day Arab leaders and politicians have created a place in history for themselves by helping to destroy their own countries with their own actions. Will Turkish society be happy with the same fate? At least Arab peoples can console themselves that this destruction was the result of foreign interventions. No such consolation would be available to Turkey if Turkish voters choose to enter the wilderness with their own votes.Thirteen years into the political and social order that created this pivotal change in Turkey's fortunes, a vote in the coming elections is not simply a vote for this political party instead of the other or this leader instead of that. It's a vote for a political and cultural system that has brought stability to the country and a political regime that speaks a language that is understood and appreciated by the country's neighbors, giving Turkey a much needed regional reach that she simply cannot afford to waste or do without.