Their line was that the AK's "moderate Islamism" would be good for democracy long-term, and anyone who was afraid of political Islam was regressive.
Yeah, sometimes editors and opinion pieces are wrong. But admit it when you are -- I haven't seen the Economist staff learn anything from this sad episode.
Over time though he slid into authoritarianism, and started jailing or exiling people who disagreed with him. Some people believe this was him showing his true colors, while others think it's a combination of his narcissism and severe paranoia getting the better of him.
Don't get me wrong: Turkey was never the pinnacle of freedom and the fair treatment of minorities. But, for people who care about liberal democracy and the separation of religion and state, things are inarguably in a much worse shape today than they were a decade ago.
That is the standard practice of authoritarians. Rarely do they announce before being elected, 'if you elect me, I'm going to do away with democracy and become a dictator'. First they get elected, then consolidate power (including by governing in a way that builds political support), and then they seize power.
The fact that he behaved in the way the parent describes doesn't mean he didn't plan to seize power as an authoritarian dictator (and it doesn't mean that he did). If the future authoritarians were easily identified ahead of time, they wouldn't have much chance of advancing their plans.
Which may be because having been to Indonesia it doesn't seem that Islamic - a lot of the temples are more Hindu in style. Maybe the documents of Islam with the death to apostates type stuff don't encourage democratic ideals.