F Stephen Larrabee: Turkish example will be hard to follow

The dramatic revolts in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya have acted as a catalyst for a broader Arab awakening that has fundamentally shaken the Middle East's political order. Several important regional implications are already beginning to emerge.

First, the revolts are a double-edged sword for Iran. The Iranian regime may benefit from the fall or weakening of pro-Western Arab leaders and regimes in Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia, but though Iran initially encouraged the democratic uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt, Iranian officials had to shift gears quickly once their own population began to call for the same democratic rights.

Second, the upheavals threaten to leave Israel more isolated. With Hosni Mubarak gone, Israel has lost its most important regional partner - while Egypt's interim military regime has pledged to adhere to the 1979 peace agreement, a new, more democratic government could adopt a different attitude.

Third, the pressures for democratic change have bolstered Turkey's regional influence - while the United States and the European Union initially hedged their bets, Turkish prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan sided squarely with the demonstrations for democracy in Tahrir Square.

Many Arabs regard the brand of moderate Islam espoused by Turkey's ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) as a possible model for the Middle East. In a recent interview, Mr Erdogan noted that Turkey could be a "source of inspiration", as it has shown that Islam and democracy can coexist harmoniously.

At first glance, the Turkish model - with its emphasis on secularism and democracy - has obvious appeal in a region burdened by corrupt, autocratic, incompetent, and inefficient governments. But Turkey's historical experience and political evolution differ in important ways from those of other Arab countries.

Turkish Islam is more moderate and pluralistic than elsewhere in the Middle East, and since at least the late Ottoman period Turkey has sought to fuse Islam and westernisation.

The AKP's moderate brand of Islam flourished largely in response to internal factors, particularly the rise of a new entrepreneurial class in Anatolia that was economically liberal but socially and politically conservative. This class, one of the AKP's main pillars of electoral support, does not exist elsewhere in the Middle East.

Moreover, the Turkish model owes much to the leadership of Kemal Ataturk, founder of the Turkish Republic. Mr Ataturk, a committed Westerniser and political visionary, transformed the multinational Ottoman empire into a modern state based on Turkish nationalism.

The process of westernisation and modernisation had begun in the late 19th century under the Ottomans during the period of the Tanzimat.While the Kemalists sought a radical break with the Ottoman past, there was continuity between their westernisation efforts and those in the late Ottoman period.

These pre-conditions do not exist in the Arab Middle East. Most countries in the region lack strong independent political institutions and traditions on which to build a democratic political order. They also lack a vibrant civil society.

Ultimately, the Arab countries do not have the benefit of Turkey's tradition of moderate Islam or its history of fusing Islam and westernisation. As a result, the collapse of the old power structures in many Middle East countries is likely to be accompanied by political turmoil and violence.

• F Stephen Larrabee, a former member of the US National Security Council, holds the distinguished chair in European Security at think-tank the RAND Corporation