Turkish political history offers observers a paradoxical mix of profound changes and continuity with the past. Since the introduction of multiparty politics in 1945, the path to democracy in Turkey has been a tenuous and, at times, volatile journey. Throughout its seventy-plus-year history, democracy has endured many disruptions: three direct military coups in 1960, 1971 and 1980, then a ‘soft coup’ in 1997 and, most recently, an attempted coup in 2016. Along with these developments, the country's citizens have been forced to contend with party closures, periods of political violence and bouts of crippling political instability. Despite its past, the resilience of the multi-party system in Turkey underlines the salience of democratic thought within the political calculations of both the political class and society more broadly.

However, this resilience has not led to the development of a consolidated democracy. The contradictory mix of change and continuity, which could be described as a holding pattern, has persisted. And today, under Prime Minister-cum-President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's rule, Turkey finds itself farther away from democracy, relegated to the category of an authoritarian regime (Özbudun 2015; Esen and Gümüşcü 2016; White 2017). This story, however, is not confined to the Erdoğan era. It speaks directly to a much longer history. The transition to an authoritarian system is another example of the ongoing precarious nature of Turkey's democracy. And so, attempting to diagnose why Turkey has failed to consolidate its democratic gains during its seventy-plus years of multi-party politics is the puzzle that drives and binds the study in this book.

Explaining Turkey's democratic paradox has not been easy. Naturally, whilst a variety of factors have led to this holding pattern, as highlighted by excellent scholarship, the present book takes the position that Turkey's political leaders are a central component to understanding the country's inability to consolidate democracy. The book's exploration reveals how the direction and development of Turkish democracy – including its bouts of crises and instability – have been largely contingent on the behaviour, practices and decisions of its leaders.