On competence alone, Recep Tayyip Erdogan deserved his landslide election victory. The Turkish Prime Minister has proved one of the most effective reformers since the founding of Turkish Republic. Since his centre-right, pro-business party Justice and Development Party (AKP) came to power, the economy has prospered, investment has surged, politics has stabilised, legal reforms have strengthened individual rights, moves have been made towards resolving the Cyprus and Kurdish questions and serious negotiations have begun with the European Union. It is a record that deserved vindication. That, however, was not the main issue. At stake was Turkey’s identity and whether a moderate Islamist party was compatible with a secular democracy. Overwhelmingly, the electorate decided it was.

The result has huge implications across the Middle East. Islamic parties are gaining in much of the Muslim world. They vary from the narrow-minded - and usually underground - extremists in Algeria, Egypt and Pakistan to more pragmatic movements in Jordan, Malaysia and Turkey. Secular governments, however, are deeply suspicious of their agenda, fearing that, like totalitarians of the past, they will use the electoral system to gain power and then change the constitution so that they cannot be ousted. Islamic parties themselves are split over democracy. Some are openly hostile, and refuse to accept temporal power even when offered as they do not want to sully the purity of their claims to spiritual legitimacy. A few, such as AKP, appear to have accepted the democratic framework and are willing to admit tolerance towards secular opponents.

Were the proud and powerful Turkish army, bitterly resentful of this popular rebuff to its self-proclaimed mission as guardian of Atatürk’s secular legacy, to seek to annul the result, Islamic extremists across the Middle East would be strengthened. Parliamentary democracy, they would insist, is a sham; true Muslims should therefore boycott elections and seek power by other means. Such a stance would, in turn, reinforce the determination of fearful political elites to crush any opposition movement on the pretext that it was Islamist-inspired.

Mr Erdogan must tread carefully. The overwhelming danger is the triumphalism of his religiously motivated supporters, who have chafed at his earlier pragmatic compromises and want him now to press forward with a full-blown Islamist agenda - more Islamic schools, a lifting of the ban on headscarves in education and government and curbs on the sale of alcohol. He must resist uncompromisingly. Many of his votes came from Turks who have little enthusiasm for his Islamic beliefs but were impressed by his economic record. Equally, Mr Erdogan cannot ignore the huge demonstrations during the campaign by young Turks, especially in the cities, who oppose any move away from a Western secular society. He has also to take into account the rise of the right-wing Nationalist Action Party, which won 70 seats, cutting into AKP’s majority and potentially become a long-term ally of nationalists in the army.

The immediate issue is the nomination of the president. Mr Erdogan should withdraw the name of Abdullah Gul, the controversial Foreign Minister, and seek instead a neutral candidate. He should give diehards in the army no excuse to intervene, and continue to make Turkey richer, more tolerant and more stable. That is his mandate and his responsibility.