When the Islamist Welfare party took power in Turkey in 1996, it looked like a turning point-the secular republic had, it seemed, fallen, and Islamism was on the march. But the army soon eased Welfare out of power in a bloodless coup. The next apparent turning point was the earthquake of 1999; not only was the old enmity with Greece set aside, but there was also unprecedented criticism of the military. Still, the army did not relinquish its grip on Turkish life.
Will the elections of 3rd November prove to be another illusory turning point? The election saw the Justice and Development Party (AK) take almost two thirds of the seats in parliament. Because of AK's roots-in Islamist parties that were banned under Turkey's secular constitution-it looks like a throwback. But it is not.
AK does not call itself a Muslim democratic party-it spends much of its time playing down its religious dimension. Instead, it calls itself a "conservative democrat" party; pro-market, socially conservative, pro-EU. As for Islam, the party's leadership certainly does not disavow the role of religion. Islamic values inform the party's programme, but Islamism does not dictate its agenda. There'll be no crusades against alcohol, no sharia, no state-sponsored mosque building.
Indeed, it is possible that a party born out of Islamism, and deeply distrusted by the Turkish establishment, could liberalise and modernise Turkey's flawed democracy-a democracy with a poor human rights record and an excessive role for the military. It could even forge the modern European identity for Muslim politics, hoped for by Jack Straw in Prospect (October).
AK is little over a year old; at the time of writing it still had no prime ministerial candidate, let alone a government in place. But a programme is discernible. AK is serious about joining the EU and has dealt with the latest expressions of scepticism from Europe with more maturity than some of its predecessors. If nothing comes of the Copenhagen summit, said AK's leader Recep Tayyip Erdogan, then the relationship with Europe will continue.
Similarly, AK is serious about meeting the human rights criteria required by the EU. Moreover, for many in the AK leadership democratisation is an end in itself, rather than just the means to EU membership. Abdullah Gul, the party's deputy chairman and a possible prime minister, speaks of freedom from repression as a basic human right. AK's MPs discuss the need to end the role of the military, and to recast Turkey's relationship with its Kurdish minority.
AK does have party political reasons for pursuing freedom of expression; its more religious supporters expect to see some change on issues like the right to wear headscarves in universities. But that doesn't seem to be the driving force behind its programme.
Turkey remains a big challenge for the EU, with its human rights problem, the role of the army, the agricultural sector (42 per cent of the labour force), the borders with hostile countries.
In the past, every time Turkey was prodded over human rights, or the state of the economy, or the role of the state, back would come whining complaints from Turkish politicians. AK seems to understand, as others did not, that the EU owes Turkey nothing.
But what can Turkey bring to the EU? The answer is youth: 60 per cent of Turkey's population of 68m is under the age of 30; the median age is just under 26. In Britain the median age is 38. Turkey can at least help to slow Europe's ageing problem.
Turkey is still a hard case. But its politics now look more European than ever before; its culture a beguiling and enriching mix of east and west, its economy an opportunity as well as a concern. Is Europe big enough?
