In “The Third Wave” Samuel Huntington highlights that “democratization in one country encourages democratization in other countries”. Huntington points out that demonstration effects were “strongest among countries that were geographically proximate and culturally similar.” Turkey’s democratic reforms and its economic success – the country rose to the world’s largest 16th economy- revived debates on its role as a model for the neighboring Middle East. Turkey’s democratic reform process was unleashed by the EU’s decision to open membership perspective. Political and legal reforms in light of accession to the EU curtailed the army’s powers, broadened civil liberties and improved the human rights situation, while adaption to the acquis communautaire further supported the neoliberal transformation of the Kemalist state. Given growing skepticism regarding Turkey’s “Europeanness” more and more EU states (e.g. France, Germany, Austria) began to foreground Turkey’s Muslim identity and to see its future role more as that of a multiplier of democracy and market economy in its “Islamic neighborhood” rather than as a future full-fledged member to the EU. Turkey has increasingly served as a model of a “good Islamic democracy”. The ruling AKP, a reformed Islamist party, itself a produce of Turkey’s neoliberal transition has been a key element. The AKP stands for de-ideologization, adaptation to globalized markets and pragmatic policy-making. It is an example for a successful marriage of post-modern Islamism with neoliberalism and democracy. The AKP’s integration with the democratic and economic system inspired reform oriented Islamists in the Arab world and helped them calm down arguments against their own struggle for political participation. Interestingly, in the wake of the Arab Spring, it has been mainly Arab secularists and liberals who have pointed out to the Turkish model, while many of the new Islamist governments have stated that the “Turkish model” is not replicable in the Arab world; mainly for its secular framework. Thus, Turkey has served as a model due to what it is perceived and not what it does. And, how Turkey has been perceived has very much varied in the eyes of the beholders. This made it possible to read different things into the “Turkish model” and to promote it for adverse interests. References to Turkey as a model for transitions in the Arab world have ignored the significant differences in the causes and the nature of the transition processes, and they have neglected the critical debates taking place within Turkey.