Earlier quoted context omitted.
>But in theory courts and military can stop him. The voters can also stop him. Instead, Turkish voters not only re-elected him multiple times, they even voted in one special election to give him even more power. The Turkish people are getting the government they've voted for. >Absolute power is dangerous and the mind starts to slip after a while. Yes, but what can you do when a nation of people democratically decide…
It's not that simple. Erdogan massively repressed his rivals, such as the parties representing the Kurdish part of the population and their sympathizers (HDP) and the whole Gülen movement, not to mention the young movement protesting in the Gezi Park a few years ago. So we cannot pretend that the elections held were fair and open, e.g. the results aren't representative of the entire population of Turkey.
As for repression, Erdogan didn't do that all by himself. Autocrats like that persist because they have a power structure under them that supports them and keeps them in power. In a democratic country like Turkey, this is supported by the people voting to keep these power structures in place. In short, the majority of the people there do support him. Yeah, it sucks that he repressed minorities, but that's one of the dangers of democracy: if the majority doesn't care about protecting minorities and their civil rights, then the minorities get stomped on. The only thing that makes a democratic system better than a completely autocratic system (like North Korea) is that at least in the democracy, there's a chance the majority will protect the minorities, and whatever institutions have been built in the system of government to do so and prevent leaders from having too much power. But as Turkey shows, and also in Germany in the 1930s, it sometimes falls apart, mainly because the people allow it to.