Since the Gezi Park protests in May-June 2013, foreign observers noted a considerable difference between Turkey’s two key leaders: President Abdullah Gul and Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Gul, in almost every political controversy, took a more conciliatory tone, while Erdogan excelled in his uncompromising, defiant, combative style. When Gul said that he “received the message” of the Gezi Park protesters, for example, pointing out that “democracy is not just about elections,” Erdogan instead condemned the protesters as “looters” and called everybody to simply respect the winners at the ballot box. With regard to the controversies on “the parallel state,” Twitter and YouTube or foreign conspiracies against Turkey, Gul again repeatedly took stances that can be broadly called liberal. Erdogan, meanwhile, proved consistently authoritarian.

For most Western observers who observed all these differences, Gul’s line looks more appealing and comforting, while Erdogan’s line looks irrational. They just cannot understand how Turkey’s successful prime minister does not see that he needs to introduce moderation to a deeply polarized country. However, in fact, Erdogan’s position is not irrational at all. Quite the contrary, it is based on a very consistent logic, which is much more established in Turkey than the liberal logic. It is what I call “the Turkish doctrine of pre-emptive authoritarianism.”

This doctrine, which has not been observed much in Turkey simply because it is taken as a fact of life, is based on a simple rule: In every political confrontation, the thing to do is to be as strong, defiant, stubborn and threatening as possible. Only then, the enemy will be crushed and victory will be secured. Otherwise, the enemy will begin to come after you, defeat you and will show no mercy. So, you should pre-emptively corner and weaken him as much as possible.

This doctrine does not believe in peaceful solutions that will come through negotiation, bargaining and consensus. Reasonable concessions, which could normally lead to such consensus-based solutions, are condemned as naivete, weakness and perhaps not outright treason.