July 15, 2016 shall be marked as a black day in Turkish history. As news reports came pouring in, the world came to the shocking news trail about the failed coup attempt by a group of Turkish soldiers. The people and administrative establishment quelled the uprising.

Snapshots from Turkish streets clearly showed the resolve of common people who categorically denounced the attempt by a faction in armed forces to seize power by force. Strong populist resistance on the streets by ordinary folks possibly broke the tenacity of rebel troops.

Turkish people have braved many coups and military dictatorships since independence in 1923. A section of military junta led by Colonel Alparslan Turkes and General Cemal Gursel overthrew the government of President Celal Bayar and Prime Minister Adnan Menderes in May 1960. The latter was executed a year later upon a verdict by a tribunal.

Coups in 1971, 1980 and in 1997 had had deep repercussions for Turkish polity and society. The condescending memorandum in 1997 by the military -- that made Prime Minister Necmettin Erbakan to resign -- was referred to as a ‘postmodern coup’ as no street fight or physical dislodging of serving ministers was done. However, the desperate attempt by some soldiers to forcibly take over important installations and exterminate government heads hinted at the ill-preparedness of coup makers.

With Ankara and Istanbul governed by the ruling Justice and Development Party mayors and municipalities, the foolishness of the adventurers is further ascertained. There are many lessons that can be drawn from this aborted initiative to overthrow an elected government in Turkey.

The makers of modern Turkey knew fully well that the futures of their country would be impacted by adventurism by overzealous despots. Therefore, they tried to ring fence their position and attempted to prevent coups from happening. Kemal Ataturk, founder of modern Turkey, took the bold decision to shift the capital to Ankara, a lesser known town in central Anatolia. Istanbul, the imperial capital of many centuries was abandoned. Mustafa Kemal and his comrades took this decision due to several reasons.

Ankara had become a seat of the independence movement in the early 1920s and a relatively safer location for convening political and resistance activities. In contrast to Istanbul which had a long entrenchment of imperial traditions and influence of invading allied forces, Ankara had a greater possibility to boost the freedom fight under Ataturk. It had a better prospect of defense against an invading force from the sea or land.

But there was a disadvantage also. Istanbul was a city with high population. In 1900, nearly a million people lived in the unique metropolis that is perched both in Asia and Europe. Ankara had only 35,000 inhabitants in 1923. Thus, the options of popular resistance to military takeovers became bright as it was easy to take control of a small capital city -- devoid of possibility of populist uprising -- and get the whole state apparatus under dictatorial control.

In comparative terms, Pakistan and many other countries in the developing world opted for similar decisions in the past. General Ayub Khan and his team decided to shift the capital from Karachi to the foothills of Margalla in late 1950s. While Karachi was a vibrant city with politically aware youth and general population, Islamabad was merely an assembly of government offices and support spaces.

The next two coups in 1977 and 1999 became convenient expeditions by Generals Zia and Musharraf as populist resistance was not in sight. However, when capital cities acquire a democratic character, it becomes difficult for military adventurers to force their isolated will on the ordinary people. Scenes from Ankara on Friday and afterwards demonstrated exactly that.

The Turkish people gave a very brisk and quick response in the wake of coup attempt. People do not react without reason. The Erdogan government has been elected by them. They had express objectives to protect it. Turkey has performed comparatively well during the Erdogan regime. That it is one of the robust emerging markets and 15^th largest economy of the world is no mean feat.

Erdogan promoted his economic policies in a way that ordinary folks positively benefitted. The per capita GDP has risen beyond 20,000 dollars and unemployment rate improved and stood at 9.3 per cent as against 9.6 per cent the previous year. Despite the incidents of terror that shook Turkey in the current and past few years, the economic performance and governance has been generally satisfactory.

People in Turkey saw the coup as an attempt to disenfranchise them and cause a halt to the stability and economic progress. The body language of Erdogan showed that he was a leader in command. He did not show any sign of weakness. In contrast, our leadership in the centre and in provinces shows a constant fear writ large on their faces. It is because their record in uplifting the economy, lowering unemployment and bringing overall economic progress has been highly unsatisfactory.

A particular news report showed that our leadership always watches the men in khaki to gauge any possible interference in their routine affairs. It must be remembered that people always favour and protect regimes that are participatory and continue to perform. Democracy is not merely a ritual of voting after five years! It takes its roots from the popular belief that progress and prosperity is not ensured for a selected few.

It is interesting to observe that print and electronic media in Turkey does not enjoy the level of freedom as seen today in Pakistan. However, in the eventuality of an attempted coup, most of the reports and analysis in this imbroglio displayed objectivity and sincerity. This is a hugely positive sign.

It is believed that as the country would move ahead with democracy, better times will dawn upon the Turkish press. The opposition parties, which are a vehement critic of Erdogan and his government, came out to support democracy and denounce adventurous takeover.

This must serve as a lesson for many of our political pundits who often discuss the ‘third umpire’ or the likelihood that clandestine influence by the military leadership would cause a positive change in our government. Those who aspire to bring change in the government must never ever consider coup of any type as an option.

The best way to take the country forward is to take politics and political organisations to the grass roots and make people believe in democracy. Participation, good governance, equal opportunities in employment and enterprise and freedom of life and worship are some pre-requisites that must be addressed by our federal and provincial governments, if they wish to see people protect them from any possible onslaught on their existence!