The discontent spilled over to the streets points to the personalized power regimes’ inability to accommodate grievances and the lack of political channels for expressing them, i.e. the absence of trustworthy political parties, effective parliament, viable opposition, and independent media.

Both Putin’s and Erdogan’s reactions to the protests were identical—they both blamed “the extremist elements” for the unrest and tried to quell it by resorting to force. Both leaders turned to traditional values—specifically religion—to legitimate their policies. The regimes in such starkly different countries are rejected by very different segments of the population on moral grounds, while the democratic civilizational alternative to these regimes is weak or discredited.

True, the Russian case proves that while Putin’s regime is losing its ground and legitimacy, the majority of the society still prefers to wait and see—its demoralization and atomization has prevented massive unrest so far. The Turkish society, though polarized, has proved to be more vibrant, thanks to the dynamic, rebellious younger generation.

In any case, social and political awakening is becoming global. But its outcome depends on two factors: the ability of the political opposition to build an alternative to the authoritarian and quasi-authoritarian regimes and the ability of the developed democracies to overcome their current crisis.