[Cyph0n]

> Nationalism by definition involves suppressing a segment of the population [...]

Great, but what does that have to do with my question, exactly? Were Kemalist leaders not nationalist autocrats?

Or are you trying to argue that nationalism is necessary for a country to transition into a democracy?

[ethbro]

> Or are you trying to argue that nationalism is necessary for a country to transition into a democracy?

I'd argue that nationalism is a requisite step for a diverse country, including multiple ethnic or cultural groups within its borders, to become a democracy. (And I'm sure I'm cribbing an old idea in the field here)

It seems like there's little basis for common action without a supergroup which includes, binds, and restrains all otherwise oppositional parties inside a legal framework.

I'd argue that's why uni-party "democracies" tend to be so fragile. When the party becomes the state, then opponents of the party can only be opponents of the state.

[yalph]

You first tell me who the hell you call “Kemalist” then I will tell you whether or not they are Kemalist at all. Dont throw around “Kemalist” liberally to make a point. Then we can discuss further.