I know that the military establishment is defeated in Turkey by Erdogan, his party, and his supporters.
What is the reason that the military's dominance, meddling, or control in politics doesn't end in another similar Muslim-majority country like Pakistan?
I suspect a key part of this is Turkey's NATO membership, as well as its aspirations to join the EU. On one hand, the EU would not take in a military dictatorship and would likely pull back on trade relations. On the other hand, NATO is pickier than it was in the past (when Greece and Turkey had military dictatorships, but there was also the big bad USSR to justify it). Turkey's generals would be getting the cold shoulder from their peers and may, quite possibly, be more interested in being an efficient and honorable military than a political one. Especially as they have no real credible enemy they can point at, besides the perennial saber rattling between them and Greece.
The culture and expectations of Turkish people may also differ from countries where the population is more fatalistic or accepting of dictatorships.
That's Turkey's situation, doesn't apply to many others. Pakistan for one is a very different can of worms (the military originally promoted Islam and they can always point to the "Indian bad guys" to justify their budget and relentlessly jamming their blood funnel into everything).
Erdogan didn't "defeat" the military, he suppressed a coup.
The highest ranking staff officers opposed the coup, and publicly ordered all personnel to return to their barracks.[170] Acting outside the military chain of command, the rebels lacked the coordination and resources to achieve their goals. The conscripted soldiers that the rebels mobilized were uninformed of their mission's true purpose and became demoralized. Many surrendered rather than shoot demonstrators
The military as a whole had already decided to allow democracy to take over. That's how Erdogan got the job 20 years ago and if anything he is the one that is steadily driving Turkey towards ever lower democratic standards.
Wiki is a good place to start with an overview of post-WW2 dictatorships. Not much to generalize about how they end, different ones have ended for different reasons.
This question is touching the very root of democracy.
Despite that some people, might be very disturbed from this discourse, I write it nevertheless, for the sake of open-minded scholers who wish to understand this important point. (I'm expecting the downvotes on this one).
"Democracy depends 100% on the given nation's culture", i.e. the people of the given country need to be democratic in nature, in order for democracy to work for them as a viable system of governance. Democracy is all about the idea of people agreeing to debate things peacefuly and give in to the majority - despite the majority being very wrong, from the loser's perspective.
If the losing party will turn to violence and will try to change the outcome of the elections, using guns and tanks - then democracy won't work.
Not all nations in the world are free of influencial people who will look for "alternative" ways to change the government, if their side loses the elections. Some nations are simply not culturely fit for democracy.
And if anything can bring an end to today's strong democracies, it's the people forgetting that if they can use violence to force their ideas on others - than the others can also do exactly this.
