Throughout the latter half of the 20th century, governments occasionally deviated from Ataturk's vision, usually to try to dilute Turkey's secular culture and give more statutory power to Islamic clerics. It was these attempts to weaken the keystones of Ataturk's Turkey that prompted the military to intervene – most recently in 1997. In most instances, most Turkish people, at least those in urban areas, supported these coups; after all, the military was acting as the guardian of the national legacy that the population held dear.

Yet not all were content. President Recep Tayyip Erdogan came to power largely because of his popularity in Turkey's more-religious rural areas. Over the past decade, the Erdogan government has gradually brought the state closer to Islamic institutions. Tensions among secular civilians and troops have been rising, though Erdogan has protected against a coup by ensuring that key officials – in government and the military – are firmly loyal to him. The executive government's power has grown while parliament's has weakened.

We remain uncertain of the motivations behind Saturday's failed coup. Erdogan blames exhiled cleric Fethullah Gulen, who has exercised significant control over the police from afar. The military forces behind the coup might also have been secularists battling for power against Erdogan loyalists. The truth will likely become apparent soon.

What is certain, however, is that Turkey is poised on a political precipice. Erdogan is a divisive, authoritarian leader. He will use this failed coup to consolidate power by purging, and punishing, thousands of officials. But public unease at his methods, and at his attempts to veer the country closer to Islam, will remain.

The West needs a stable Turkey; it is both a bulwark against and a beacon that shines hope to the nearby Middle East. In the long term, it is unlikely that Erdogan is the leader that nation needs.