fail vs. fail

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7297390.stm

This caught my eye just now. Islamofags who are trying to convert a secular country to shariahole is bad, but banning a party who got 47% of the votes too is bad. I'm not sure which side is right (or, "more right", I should say) in a situation like this, so I thought I should ask /newpol/, and considering the average intelligence here, the opposite of what you think should be the right one.

Kemal introduced crazy fundamentalist secular policies way back in the day, they weren't that popular, but being the nationalist militarist he was, he had some popular support as a leader. As time went on, people got pissed off with it, in the 60s or 70s they elected a different party that was more muslim and less secular. The army, in cooperation with the old Kemalist republican party, overthrew the newly elected government. The army in Turkey is extremely strong and devoted to enforcing the unpopular secular policies which, while nice in theory, obviously don't really fit. If the majority of people vote for an Islamic party, that isn't a call for Jihad, you should look at their other policies as well, and who votes for them. It tends to be poor people. So, you have a small, rich, and pro-secular middle class who want to keep their oppressive state/army political structure, and a poor working class who want change. I know who I think is right.