IntroductionIn this time of history where citizens are increasingly becoming aware of their civil rights and freedom, most governments have to implement democratic systems. Furthermore, pressure from Human rights organization and other international bodies that bar non-democratic countries from participating in various events has triggered democratization in various countries. Democratization as per Sørensen (2010) is the transition from an autocratic system into a democratic one.  Some of the influences of democratization include wealth, education, international participation and the civil society. According to Sadiki (2014), a strong civil society is necessary to mobilize the public around democratic duties. However, in order to have a strong civil society, there is need to create a democratic environment that encourages freedom of expression. The Middle East, particular, has been the focus of most studies due to its attempt to transition from the authoritarian Ottoman regime into a democratic regime. It is, therefore, vital to examine the causes, achievements, and obstacles of the democratization process in Iraq and Turkey.Problem StatementOne of the key issues facing Middle East countries is how to establish democratic institutions that promote stability, political harmony, and economic development. This problem is majorly because most Middle East countries have been through long periods of political conflicts and dictatorship forms of government and as such, they are used to such systems. Many countries in the Middle East have failed to establish stable democratic systems and those that attempt often face challenges and reverse to authoritarian systems. These challenges originate from the ethnic and religious conflicts that govern such countries. According to the Freedom House, Middle East Countries with the highest scores of democracy are Tunisia, Israel, Turkey, Kuwait, Morocco, and Lebanon (Santos & Teixeira, 2013). Countries like Iraq and Egypt are partly democratic while others such as Yemen and Saudi Arabia retain authoritarian system (Haynes, 2013). The problem of authoritarian system is evident in the mistreatment of the people, presence of a single political party, a lack of general election, failure to implement the rule of law, and lack of the freedom of expression. Based on this aforementioned negative effects of authoritarian rule, there is need to address how nations can successfully transition from such regimes into democratic systems. Theconcept of democratization has received attention from various researchers(Volpi, 2013; Akgün, Perçino?lu & Senyücel Gündo?ar, 2010; Haynes, 2013).However, a majority of these researchers focus their studies on the history ofpolitical regimes and few fully address the democratization process. Furthermore,most of these researchers use outdated information that is not in line with thecurrent democratic reforms. Due to this gap in the literature, there is lack ofinformation on how democratic systems work. In addition, there no sufficientdata on the factors that can accelerate transition to democracy. Grugel &Bishop (2013) contend that studies on democratic transitions are imperative toprovide both citizens and political leaders with knowledge and evidence that itis possible to implement a successful democratic system. The answer to MiddleEast conflicts lies in the establishment of democratic system in Middle Eastcountries. The current study aims address this problem by filling the gap thatexists in the literature on democratization in Middle East countries. Discussion of MethodologyTheobjective of this discussion is to analyse the democratization process in Turkeyand Iraq. Data needed for this analysis is only obtainable from secondarysources. Secondary data collection method was preferred for various reasons.First, it is a readily available source of data and this saves both time andmoney. Second, secondary data is easily accessible from library books and internetsources. Although Wilson (2010) argues that secondary-sources provide low-qualitydata, this limitation was delimitated by sourcing from government sources andother official institutions. The other research method that the researchercould have used is primary methodology. In primary methods, surveys are used tocollect data through data is collected through surveys using interviews andquestionnaires (Wilson, 2010). It was impossible to use this method because theresearch could not access the target population in Iraq and Turkey throughsurveys.Whileusing secondary methods, the researcher used data from articles, books,government websites, and trade institutions. While searching for articles on theinternet, the researcher used key words. It was critical to use key wordsbecause they ensured the collection of only relevant data only. The key wordsused included “Democratization process,” “democratization in Iraq,”“Democratization in Turkey” and “Democratization process in the Middle East”.After searching each of these key words, there was availability of severalpossible options. The researcher used the inclusion and exclusion criteria todetermine the articles to subject to critical analysis. These criteria are onthree key factors: the relevance of the article, expertise of the authors andyear of publication. The table below illustrates the inclusion and exclusioncriteria.Table 1: The inclusionand exclusion criteriaInclusionExclusionThesource topic entails democratization process in the Middle EastPresenceof key words in the sourceThesource not older than 5 years (journal articles) or 10 years (books)Author(s)have expertise and knowledge in the subject to democratization in Iraq andTurkey.Thesource topic does not entail democratization process in the middle EastAbsenceof key words in the sourceThesource is outdated. Journal articles are older than 5 year and books 10 years.The expertise and knowledge of author(s) in thetopic of the study could not be ascertained in Iraq and Turkey.Thestudy used recursive abstraction to analyse data collected from secondarysources, which involves analysing the collected data without coding (Wilson,2010). Therefore, under recursive abstraction, there was repeated analysis andsummarization of data sets to achieve until data that is more compact. Thestudy observed ethical consideration. The researcher observed the plagiarismrule by paraphrasing information or quoting while giving credit to the originalresearchers. In addition, adhering to the specification of the above inclusionand exclusion criteria improved the reliability and validity of the studyfindings. Literature ReviewVariousresearchers have attempted to define democratization process. According to oneresearcher, democratization process is the transition to a democratic politicalsystem (Asmerom & Reis, 2016). Anderson (2012) contends that it refers to substantiveand significant political changes towards a democratic direction. Overall, democraticprocess may be a transition from a dictatorship system into a full democraticsystem or from a dictatorship into a semi-democratic system or from asemi-dictatorship into a democratic system. Furthermore, such a transition mayresult in a success, like in the United Kingdom, or it may face criticisms andfrequent changes such as in Argentina (Capoccia & Ziblatt, 2010). Theexpected outcome of any democratization process is to make sure that citizenshave are allowed to vote and a freedom of expression in their political system.Accordingto Francis Fukuyama in his classical studies The End of History and the Last Man, liberal democracy is a form ofhuman government (Cederman, Hug & Krebs, 2010). In response to this claim,Samuel P.Huntingtom wrote The Third Wavedefining global democratization trend in form of three waves. The first wave broughtdemocracy to Northern America and Western Europe whereas the second wave wasthe emergence of authoritarian system during the Interwar period. According toSamuel, the third wave began in 1974 is still ongoing up to date. An example ofthe third wave is the transition to democracy in Eastern Bloc and Latin America(Coccia, 2010). Samuel suggests the Middle East as an example of a region thathas gone through all these waves democracy. During the 15th century,the Ottoman Empire dominated and ruled the Middle East and when the Empirecollapsed, the Western armies occupied the region. Ginsburg (2012) posits thata political power that emerges from both financial means and legitimacy is whatmotivates governments. Democratic governments attain legitimacy through the voiceof the people in an open election while economic means from appropriate taxsystems generate a vibrant economy.Variousfactors trigger the democratization process including the civil society, history,and economic development. Although there is an underlying debate concerning thefactors that accelerate or undermine the democratization, most have mentionedfactors like wealth, culture, social equality, foreign intervention, foreigntrade, education, international cooperation among others. Concerning wealth, Grugel& Bishop (2013) argue that a high gross domestic product relates to democracyin that the wealthiest democracies do not practice authoritarianism. For example,the rise of the Nazis in Germany and Hitler is a counter example; the GreatDepression was a major blow to the already poor economy of Germany and thisaccelerated an autocratic system (Ishiyama, 2011). Moreover, during theindustrial revolution, most countries did not have democratic system and thisimplies that wealth is a key factor in the democratization process. Thefindings of Møller & Skaaning (2012) study show that economic developmentincreases the chances of achieving a democratic system of government. Similarly,Lindberg & Sverrisson (2016) discovered that various aspects of economicdevelopment such as wealth, urbanization, and democratization are closelyrelated democratic regimes. The modernization theory explains the factors ofwealth, education, urbanization, and industrialization.  According to this theory, societies progressfrom traditional into modern societies, which have a good education system,industries, and development of towns; all these factors are antecedents of ademocratic society. Research shows that education results in greater politicaltolerance, reduces inequality, and increases the chances of citizens to takepart in political matters (Moran & Parry, 2015).Besideswealth, Qi & Shin (2011) suggest a relationship between social equality anddemocratic transition. The likelihood of democratization in an egalitariansociety is low because people have less incentive to revolt. In unequalsocieties, redistribution of power and wealth will be harmful to the elites whowill do everything to prevent democratization. This notion is in line withfindings from empirical researches that show democracy more achievable in egalitariansocieties (Savun & Tirone, 2011; Sørensen, 2010). There are also variousclaims that some cultures significantly promote values of democracy compared toothers. People consider the Western culture, for example, to contain valuesthat make democracy possible and desirable. Foreign intervention especiallymilitary intervention also triggers the initiation of democratization asevidenced in Germany and Japan after the Second World War. However, in other casessuch as in Syria, decolonization encouraged a transition into democratic systemsand dictatorship regimes later replaced these systems.Description and Evaluation of Research FindingsDemocratization Process in IraqThehistory of political systems in Iraq dates back to the Baath regime that wascharacterized by decades of wars, tyranny and oppression that left the Iraqisociety divided, lacking initiatives and susceptible to various sensitivities. TheBaath regime operated under a one-party system; a dictatorship form ofleadership. Under this regime, the single party dominated every political andsocial life of the citizens, backed by spying and killing of innocent livessuspected of disloyalty (Bengio, 2012). However, after the successful removal ofthe Baath regime in 2003, the country began its transition from a dictatorshipregime into a democratic one (Bridoux & Russell, 2013). Transition to ademocratic system in Iraq began in 2003 and this transition has grown fromdirect US rule to their partial withdrawal until the full administration of thecountry by Iraqis themselves (Brynen etal., 2012). According to Diamond (2010), succession of leadership in the Iraqigovernment involved the use cops and violence between 1958 and 2003. However,since the country reclaimed sovereignty in 2004, they have tried to holdgeneral and provincial elections, write a constitution, and exercise a peacefultransfer of parliamentary life and political power (Diamond, 2010). Despitethis process, Elbadawi & Makdisi (2010) argue that the slow transition todemocracy and a couple of challenges in democratization still impact on manyIraqis. The scope of the central government’s powers and the issues offederalism still divide the country. Additionally, there is the conflict ofidentity of Iraq as a democratic nation yet national interests such as Islamic(Mumtaz, 2010), drive its policies. Moreover, Khalilzad (2010) highlightscorruption as one of the negative factors of post-2003 period in Iraq. Thethree forms of corruption present in Iraq are financial, administrative, andpolitical and each contributes singly to the democratization process. Thefailure to curb corruption as stipulated by a democratic regime is evident inthe using apathy among Iraqis and their diminishing confidence in theircountry. Corruption has continued immensely to instability and politicalviolence resulting in lack of economic progress (Sadiki, 2014).Inrelation to the electoral politics, Miller (2010) states that the electorateand politicians in the country still do not trust the performance-based appealand instead, are still rooted the comfort zones of sectarian and ethnic affinities.So far, since its transition to democracy, the Iraqi election results reflectthe ethnic and sectarian composition of the country. Selim (2012) posits thatethnic and sectarian factors encourage political leaders to slow theimprovement of a country’s condition and cub factors like corruption. Furthermore,election of candidates in Iraq depends on sub-identities, and this furtherdenies the country a leader who can inspire the citizens from sectarian andethnic backgrounds.Despitethe current challenges during the process of democratization in Iraq, Miller (2012)argues that there is hope for democracy in the country. The withdrawal of theUS forces from Iraq accelerated its transition to democracy. As per evidencefrom empirical research, the presence of the United States focussed on securingpolitical outcomes. However, these outcomes only guaranteed the safety of theUS troops but did not necessarily impact on a healthy transition to democracy(Paya & Esposito, 2010).Natarajan (2011) argues that democracy involvescontrol of an organization by a majority of its members in order to address theissues that are special to that organization. Therefore, the presence of the UStroops interfered with this process. With the US out of the way, the detractorsof the political policies were able to debate over vital policies. Besides thewithdrawal of the US troops, Tarrow (2013) reports on the improving performanceof countries judicial system.Santos& Teixeira (2013) report that since its transition, the judiciary exercisesthe rule of law by ruling of law through based on solid grounds. According tothe rule of law, everyone including policymakers is subject to the law (Tosun,2014). For example, even the Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is subject to therule of law in court; a continual of this trend can accelerate thedemocratization process for Iraq. In addition, the new culture of subjectingthe power of the armed forced to civilian control is a positive move into full democracy.The Iraqi military operates through destructive mechanisms in politics sincethe coup in 1936 (Tarrow, 2013). However, Bengio (2012) states that due todemocratization, the army is adhering to a stringent professional policy of civiliancommand and this is a great move to a democratic system. Accordingto Tosun (2014), democratization process in Iraq faces obstacles from internationalsanctions and an economy devastated by war.  Additionally, there is a political culture ofsubmission, fear, intolerance, and suspicion; a flattened landscape in whichany opposition to Baath was driven underground; hostile neighbours whose dictatorshipsystem is threatened by the idea of a democratic Iraq and a nation deeplydriven by regional and ethnic divisions. Therefore, before achieving democracy inIraq, Bridoux & Russell (2013) outline four preconditions that will ensurea smooth democratization process. First, the citizens must be conversant withhow a democratic system works. In relation to this, Diamond (2010) argues thatit is necessary for citizens to understand the constituents of a democraticgovernment because their opinions are contingent upon such information.Similarly, Khalilzad (2010) asserts that information on how a democratic regimeworks is vital for citizens to be involved and understand the taking placearound them. This is because without such information, citizens are unable tomake informed choices about policies and political leaders. Second,a country’s level of economic development greatly influences the outcome ofdemocracy. As stated in earlier discussions, economic development relates withdemocracy. Therefore, it is very vital for Iraq to develop economically inorder to maintain a democratic system of government. As hailed by the modernizationtheory, Iraq must create jobs, promote education, and improve infrastructure inorder to transform from a traditional economy into a modern one (Mumtaz, 2010).Third, a change of religion is necessary for Iraq. In Iraq, Muslims believethat violence is the solution to every controversy. If Iraqi citizens could shiftaway from this tyrannical religion, then the process of democratization will beeasy. Lastly, every citizen in Iraq should have access to social justice.Sadiki (2014) argues that social is imperative to prevent abuses of basic humanrights and enhance social and personal development of citizens.Democratization Process in TurkeyTurkeyhas been in the midst of a complex democratization process since the ends ofthe 1980 coup d’état (Akgün, Perçino?lu & Senyücel Gündo?ar, 2010). Grigoriadis(2010) states that since Turkey conducted its first election after the coup, ithas undergone vital transformations that have greatly influenced itsdemocratization process. Keyman (2010) argues that Turkey’s candidacy for EU membershipparticularly is a catalyst for a broad social and political spectrum thatcontributes positively to the achievement of political reforms. Although the processof democratization in Turkey has been slow and majorly characterized bypiecemeal reforms, Kuymulu (2013) states that it has not met all the criteriathat is inherent in a liberal democracy. Turkey’s democratization process hasfaced both moments of acceleration and obstacles. The country lacks unitybetween the parties in terms of objectives and legislative reforms that relateto the democratization process. A major indicator of these obstacles is theshortcoming in the process of adopting a new constitution in 2011 (Kuymulu,2013). Althoughdemocratization in Turkey was interrupted in the past by the military (coup,military takeover and the postmodern coup d’état), it has achieved significantsuccess. Since its transition to democracy, Turkeys has succeeded in theimplementation of various reforms. The government introduced substantialreforms on relationships between the civil society and the military, the judiciaryand privacy of personal life. For much of Turkish history, the military has exertedinfluence into political affairs. According to Tezcür (2010), Turkey hasundergone a tremendous military led transition from an autocratic one into ademocratic one. Concerning the judiciary, the Turkey government is practicingthe rule of law. To deal with the memoirs of the authoritarian regime, thejudiciary has brought to justice the generals involved in the 1980 coup. Besidesthat, the recent “peace process” by the government of Turkey created hope thatthe Kurdish problem can be resolved and the country can achieve democracy (Tezcür,2010). The findings one survey in Turkey shows that around 60% of thepopulation are in favour of the peace process and this implies that thecitizens desire a democratic government (Tosun, 2014). Moreover, Öni? (2010)states that in a democratic system, the people must be free to air their voiceon political matters. To comply with this democratic rule, Turkey has given rightsto community foundations and the freedom of expression to its citizens (Öni?,2010). Turkey has also succeeded in the areas of abolishment of the deathpenalty, freedom of religion and reform of detention centres and prisons.Thesuccess of transition to democracy in Turkey is also evident in therelationship between the government and the civil society. The concept of civilsociety is strong in Turkey and the government has become the actor of socialchange through values like trust, social stability and social responsibility (Öni?,2013). The civil society organizations (CSOs) in Turkey have influencedmodernization and democratization. Grigoriadis (2010) states that theseorganizations implement values of democracy in people thus building their trustand confidence in democratic systems. However, Keyman (2010) argues that areform of Turkey’s educational system will further enhance the contributions ofthe civil society to democracy.Despitethis success, the democratization of Turkey in the recent years has become partof a reverse wave. For democratization to succeed, Rodriguez et al. (2013)assert that the citizens must accept the process. In Kuymulu (2013) attitudesurvey, 8% of the Turks state that they disliked the American views ondemocracy claiming that it encourages the “subjects” to regard it as animposition. Furthermore, as per Robert Dahl, a democratic theorist, no country hasever had a government that fully adheres to the criteria of a democraticprocess (Rodriguez et al., 2013).Tezcür (2010) identified three dimensions of democracy that include the levelof political participation, the degree of political competition and the influenceof political and civil liberties. In the Turkish case, these dimensions may bebroken down into the role of Islam, the role of the military and the place ofTurkish nationalism.Althoughthe military has played a significant role in democratization in Turkey, Tosun (2014)argues that it has also been an obstacle in this process. As Max Weber posits,if in a state there is monopoly use of force, a liberal state will limit itsown use of force within a framework created by law (Tosun, 2014). Öni? (2013)argues that the role of the Turkish military as being “above society” andacting independently from the citizens continues to reverse the country toOttoman times. Tezcür (2010) argues that if the “guardian” role of the militarythreatens the political class, then it will have problems in abandoningpatronage resources. For example, after the 1980 coup, although the civilgovernment owned the Constitution, the military had a privileged place. It isfor this reason that Kuymulu (2013) posits that the attitude of the military inits relationship with the government is still a huge barrier to thedemocratization process.TheTurkish nationalism and the creation of a political community is also a barriertowards a transition to democracy. Modern democracy is contingent uponimplementing and sustaining a political community. As Keyman (2010) asserted,it is impossible for the citizens to decide until someone decides for them. Ina political community, people trust and respect each other without knowing eachother. Democracy entails that the government that loses in election isconfident that the winning government will serve them in the interests of the citizens.However, national identity and political community often overlap in some cases.This scenario is evident in Turkey where by nationalism is very strong butstrives to compete with the existence of the policy itself. Therefore, thedefensive nature of the Turkish nationalism means that it is impossible toexpress the cultural rights of minority communities. For example, although thegovernment has permitted broadcasting in other languages, the use of this otherlanguages is illegal in the political life.Thestate of Islam in Turkey is also a barrier to achieving modern democracy. Overthe past decade, Islam presents major challenges to the democratization processand there has been a negative relationship between democracy and Islam (Grigoriadis,2010). While democracy call for a separation between the private and publicdimensions of life, in Turkey, there is, a single interpretation of Islam doesnot allow for this separation (Keyman, 2010). Modern Islam accepts theseparation between democracy and religion but do not deem it right toquarantine their religious life to private life. Therefore, Turkish military’s effortto suppress moderate Islam to public life is a threat to religion and pushesmoderates to radical measures that negatively affect democratization. Summary of FindingsTheprocess of democratization is slow and faces many obstacles in both Turkey andIraq. InIraq, the various achievements in its democratization process include theimprovement of the electorate, implementation of the rule of law and freedom ofexpression to the civil society. However, democratization in Iraq faceschallenges from economic sanctions, regional and ethnic divisions, andsectarian affinities. On the other hand, in Turkey, the process ofdemocratization seems to be a success. This is because, so far, the country hasabolished death penalties, the civil society has the freedom of expression, andthe peace process has suppressed ethnic conflicts. Despite this success, Turkeystill faces challenges from the dominant role of the military, the restrictionof use of Islam in public life and a conflict between the political communityand nationalism. Based on this analysis, Iraq is partly democratic while Turkeyis a fully democratic country.ReferencesAkgün, M., Perçino?lu, G., & Senyücel Gündo?ar, S. (2010). The perception of Turkey in the Middle East. TESEV Foreign Policy Analysis, 10.Anderson, L. (Ed.). (2012). Transitions to democracy. Columbia University Press.Asmerom, H. K., & Reis, E. P. (Eds.). (2016). Democratization and bureaucratic neutrality. Springer.Bengio, O. (2012). Are Iraq and Turkey models for democratization?. Middle East Quarterly.Bridoux, J., & Russell, M. (2013). Liberal democracy promotion in Iraq: a model for the Middle East and North Africa?. Foreign Policy Analysis, 9(3), 327-346.Brynen, R., Moore, P. W., Salloukh, B. F., & Zahar, M. J. (2012). Beyond the Arab spring: authoritarianism & democratization in the Arab world (Vol. 4). Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.Capoccia, G., & Ziblatt, D. (2010). The historical turn in democratization studies: A new research agenda for Europe and beyond.Cederman, L. E., Hug, S., & Krebs, L. F. (2010). Democratization and civil war: Empirical evidence. Journal of Peace Research, 47(4), 377-394.Coccia, M. (2010). Democratization is the driving force for technological and economic change. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 77(2), 248-264.Diamond, L. (2010). Why are there no arab democracies?. Journal of democracy, 21(1), 93-112.Elbadawi, I., & Makdisi, S. (Eds.). (2010). Democracy in the Arab world: explaining the deficit. Routledge.Ginsburg, T. (2012). Comparative constitutional design. Cambridge University Press.Grigoriadis, I. N. (2010). Friends no more? The rise of anti-American nationalism in Turkey. The Middle East Journal, 64(1), 51-66.Grugel, J., & Bishop, M. L. (2013). Democratization: a critical introduction. Palgrave Macmillan.Haynes, J. (2013). Democracy in the Developing World: Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Middle East. John Wiley & Sons.Ishiyama, J. T. (2011). Comparative Politics: Principles of Democracy and Democratization (Vol. 8). John Wiley & Sons.Keyman, E. F. (2010). Modernization, globalization and democratization in Turkey: the AKP experience and its limits. Constellations, 17(2), 312-327.Khalilzad, Z. (2010). lessons from afghanistan and iraq. Journal of Democracy, 21(3), 41-49.Kuymulu, M. B. (2013). Reclaiming the right to the city: Reflections on the urban uprisings in Turkey. City, 17(3), 274-278.Lindberg, S., & Sverrisson, Á. (Eds.). (2016). Social movements in development: the challenge of globalization and democratization. Springer.Miller, B. (2010). Explaining changes in US grand strategy: 9/11, the rise of offensive liberalism, and the war in Iraq. Security Studies, 19(1), 26-65.Miller, B. (2012). Does Democratization Pacify the State? The Cases of Germany and Iraq1. International Studies Quarterly, 56(3), 455-469.Møller, J., & Skaaning, S. E. (2012). Democracy and democratization in comparative perspective: conceptions, conjunctures, causes and consequences (Vol. 22). Routledge.Moran, M., & Parry, G. (2015). Democracy and democratization. Routledge.Mumtaz, K. (2010). Post-Saddam democratization in Iraq: an assessment of March 2010 elections. Strategic Studies, 30(1 and 2).Natarajan, U. (2011). Creating and recreating Iraq: legacies of the Mandate system in contemporary understandings of Third World sovereignty. Leiden Journal of International Law, 24(04), 799-822.Öni?, Z. (2010). Contesting for the “center”: domestic politics, identity conflicts and the controversy over EU membership in Turkey (Doctoral dissertation, ?stanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi).Öni?, Z. (2013). Sharing power: Turkey’s democratization challenge in the age of the AKP hegemony. No. 2, 1013, 103-122.Paya, A., & Esposito, J. L. (Eds.). (2010). Iraq, democracy and the future of the muslim world. Routledge.Qi, L., & Shin, D. C. (2011). How mass political attitudes affect democratization: Exploring the facilitating role critical democrats play in the process. International Political Science Review, 0192512110382029.Rodriguez, C., Avalos, A., Yilmaz, H., & Planet, A. I. (2013). Turkey’s democratization process. Routledge.Sadiki, L. (2014). Routledge Handbook of the Arab Spring: Rethinking Democratization. Routledge.Santos, M. H. D. C., & Teixeira, U. T. (2013). The essential role of democracy in the Bush Doctrine: the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional, 56(2), 131-156.Savun, B., & Tirone, D. C. (2011). Foreign aid, democratization, and civil conflict: how does democracy aid affect civil conflict?. American Journal of Political Science, 55(2), 233-246.Selim, G. M. (2012). The impact of post-Saddam Iraq on the cause of democratization in the Arab world. International Journal of Contemporary Iraqi Studies, 6(1), 53-87.Sørensen, G. (2010). Democracy and democratization. In Handbook of politics (pp. 441-458). Springer New York.Tarrow, S. (2013). Contentious politics. Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Tezcür, G. M. (2010). When democratization radicalizes: The Kurdish nationalist movement in Turkey. Journal of Peace Research, 47(6), 775-789.Tosun, E. (2014). Conflict, Democratization, and the Kurds in the Middle East: Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria. Uluslararas? Hukuk ve Politika, (42).Volpi, F. (2013). Explaining (and re-explaining) political change in the Middle East during the Arab Spring: trajectories of democratization and of authoritarianism in the Maghreb. Democratization, 20(6), 969-990.Wilson, J. (2010). Essentials of Business Research: A Guide to Doing Your Research Project. London: Sage.Get Help With Your EssayIf you need assistance with writing your essay, our professional essay writing service is here to help!Find out more