EU-Turkey relations have always had significance, and it will be so in the future as well. This relation has gained different meanings throughout history with the Republic's foundation as a modern, Westernized country in 1923 and Turkey's participation in NATO after the Nazis were defeated. In general, people in Turkey do not have a problem with secularism or being a Muslim country. Turkey has not drifted to a dark or irrational world the West is afraid of, even during the Ottoman Era, during which it was ruled with religion. The multicultural administration structure determined the empire. It was governed with an ethnic system based on an Islamic notion of justice. Moreover, it initiated a transition period to evolve into a constitution-based, modern state from the end of the 18th century.Therefore, it is useless to expect an Iranian type of radicalism from a country with such a history, especially after a century of the Republican period. Such an expectation would be irrational. Maybe our European friends might have difficulty understanding that they were evaluating Turkey within a standard, monolithic and mostly evil perception of Islam.Due to this perspective, the developments within the last 12 years under Justice and Development Party (AK Party) rule and its influential leader Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, who has a religious base, were analyzed incorrectly. Of course this column is for those doing this due to a lack of knowledge rather than those intentionally doing this.Europe and the U.S. are evaluating all the incidents in Turkey according to their already complete templates of democracy and law. However, there is a cutthroat fight for sovereignty between the AK Party, a reformist power representing large masses, and circles wishing to maintain civil and military dominance. While the government has to remain within the limits of the law, illegal power groups in the state and central media allying with them do not have any ethical limitation or an obligation to give an account or a concern for legitimacy. Lately, we have seen that the police and members of the judiciary, who are affiliated with a group in the guise of a religious movement, made a move against civil politics with many attempts, including illegal wiretappings and secret operations, subverting the hierarchy. This group, which also controlled the Supreme Board of Judges and Prosecutors (HSYK), an institution authorized to block or direct the judiciary, planned and tried to stage a coup by activating its members in the entire public sphere. Upon that, the government enacted a law to turn the HSYK into a more pluralist structure. The power of this clique was broken to a great extent in higher judicial bodies. The new members of the institution comprise people from every segment of society.It is normal to regard this as a political intervention in the judiciary as long as the EU and U.S. evaluate Turkey by ignoring the country's individual conditions as if those conditions were not determinants. And it was really evaluated this way and concerns were expressed on the matter.Bureaucratic thinking with a plain logic can say, "Allow the judiciary to do its job. It should investigate corruption claims," regarding the Dec. 17 and Dec. 25 judicial coup. But what if the thing we allow is actually a coup? Is it sensible that our Western friends do not consider the special conditions of this country where Erdoğan's two offices were wiretapped by members of a parallel structure in the security team, crypto phone software the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TÜBİTAK) developed and distributed to state officials were seized and operations were launched against deputies from opposition parties before the 2011 elections with illegal tapes?Yes, it could be argued that such a democracy is not ready to join the EU. But even this would be the result they infer, the condition of objective evaluation should be asked. If both sides of the coin are seen but only one side is regarded, then it means that it is desired for such structures to impose domination in Turkey. Then the EU would be an addressee Turkey would extenuate more and more. I guess this would not be in anyone's favor, though.