John Walsh Thesis Revision

This page is an exercise in revising a massively plagiarized master's thesis by paraphrasing portions of the text that were either quoted without attribution (no citation) or quoted inappropriately (no quotation marks). In both cases we will re-write individual paragraphs and deposit the results here, by page number.

Here is a link to the New York Times article.

Instructions:

John Walsh plagiarism damage control

1. Type on your personal notebook a piece of text (paragraph) from the page represented in the New York Times article of July 23, 2014.
2. Edit to rephrase in your own words, avoiding close paraphrasing as much as possible.
3. Cut and past results into this document on the proper page in the proper order, if possible.
4. Do minor formatting or editing as needed.
5. BONUS. If you are editing a passage without attribution, insert the reference.

Page 1

During George W. Bush's time as president, few believed that he would focus on the advancement of democracy.[1] During 2001, the Bush administration did not even address the issue of promoting civil societies, rule of law, free elections and open political processes as major issues of their agenda.[2] Early on, Bush and his team made it evident that they would not put heavy emphasis on fostering democracy, but rather they would focus on "great-power realism."[3] In Bush's next term, he began by expressing that there would be a great focus on foreign policy through a large push toward achieving world peace. As a result, in early 2005, Bush released new policies which are now referred to as the Bush Doctrine.[4] Though the policies were new, the foundation was not. The belief that bettering democracy outside of one's country to ensure safety within one's country is not a new idea.[5] In his inaugural address on January 20, President George W. Bush declared that "it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world."[6]

"As long as the Middle East remains a place where freedom does not flourish, it will remain a place of stagnation, resentment, and violence ready for export. And with the spread of weapons that can bring catastrophic harm to our country and to our friends, it would be reckless to accept the status quo. Therefore the United States has adopted a new policy, a forward strategy of freedom in the Middle East."[7]

Establishing democracy in the Middle East, specifically in Iraq, is not a simple effort. There have been innumerable amounts of issues in America's attempt to help the region toward freedom.[8]

"Those who believe that a democratic Middle East is possible are few in number. Within certain sectors of America, and nearly everywhere outside of America, the voices of skepticism are growing. Many have questioned whether the democratic world has a right to impose its values on a region that is said to reject them. Many have argued that military intervention in the Middle East is causing more harm than good."[9]

There are people who also believe that just because democracy works in some places, does not mean that it will work in all societies, nor do all deserve to have it.[10]

"There is not a single non-democratic regime in the Middle East, nor anywhere else for that matter, that wants Iraqis to be free. The regimes that deny freedoms to Iranians, Syrians, Saudi Arabians, Egyptians, and so many others know that success in Iraq indicates that the sands in the hourglass that mark their repressive rule will start running out faster than ever."[11]

Page 2

This project will provide a valid argument that the United States must continue to pursue democracy in the Middle East as a key component of the National Security Strategy of the USA beyond January 20, 2009 when President Bush leaves office. Democracy is not a pure entity and the United States should not attempt to force democracy on other countries. (fn) The belief is that it is in the global interest for there to be more democratic countries. If the Bush doctrine is successful in laying the foundation for democracy in the region and elsewhere around the world, the spread of democracy in the Middle East will have to remain American policy beyond January 20, 2009. (fn) Patience is a must and if we have any hope of successfully promoting freedom as the alternative to tyranny and despair we must remain patient!

Defining Democracy

As the United States pursues democracy around the glove, it is important to understand the definition and concept of democracy. There are many disputes about the correct conceptual definition, about whether democracy is purely to elect leaders, about how we can calculate democracy, and the importance of the footwork for implementing democracy. (fn) Democracy is particularly challenging to define because it is not a physical substance, rather a form of rulership and an evolving form of governance(fn). There is a singular definition of democracy that is recognized in the US and much of the third world. As defined by the US State Department: "government by the people in whom the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them, or by their elected agents, under a free electoral system(fn).Representative Democracy is the most common, as it allows citizens to elect their representatives which indirectly gives power to the people in the government. In this day and age, the call for democracy is heard around the world. Totalitarian governments have been absent from Eastern Europe for almost half a century. The republics of the former Soviet Union are constantly trying, to replace the Communist regime of nearly seventy five years, with democracy. This is a system that they have never once before lived under. North and South America are currently the center of democracy. Democratic Reform is happening all throughout Africa, and many new democracies have laid groundwork for success in Asia.

Page 3

While acknowledging that the basic elements of a democracy will be different based on the cultural, economic, and social systems found in a given society leaves room for some imprecision in the application of the definition, a working definition of democracy that is largely accepted by political scientists who endorse what is known as the Democratic Peace Theory amounts to: 1. The nation must hold competitive elections. To be defined as competitive, there must be at least two formally independent political parties (or similar groups). 2. 50% or more of the adult population must be allowed to vote. 3. Those in legislative and executive power must have been put into place by said elections. 4. There must have been at least one peaceful, constitutional transfer of power between independent political parties. Nations which do not meet all four conditions might be considered emerging democracies or republics, but would not be considered democracies until they met all four conditions.

While this definition of democracy is fairly strict, most nations that are considered democracies fit these criterion. Most nations that are not usually considered democracies, especially middle eastern nations, do not meet all of these criterion, and therefore can be considered protodemocracies. There are also some nations, for example North Korea, who do not meet any of these criterion.

This definition will also allow us to easily tell the difference between democracy and liberal democracy, under a liberal democracy the vast majority of adults must be eligible to vote, and freedom of political speech and press must be enshrined in the system of law. Thus the United States, for example, would not have qualified for "liberal democracy" status until the 19th amendment was ratified to give women the right to vote and it didn't fully meet the promises of liberal democracy until it guaranteed the franchise to blacks some 40 years ago.

A fundamental part of democracy is the ability of the people to elect and remove their leaders. This democratic movement has spread and now many countries hold such elections.

Page 4

The Links between Democracy and Security

In 1994 the Clinton administration endorsed and adopted the idea that there is a link between democracy and security. [23] In his 1994 State of the Union address President Clinton declared that "ultimately the best strategy to insure our security and to build a durable peace is to support the advance of democacy elsewhere." [24] A year earlier, Anthony Lake, then President Clinton's assistant for national security affairs, had called for replacing the Cold War strategy of containment with a "strategy of enlargement - enlargement of the world's community of market democracies." [25]

President Bush throughout his presidency has also consistently argued that there is an inextricable link between freedom and peace, and between democracy and security.

The Bush administration and its defenders contend that the push for Arab democracy in the Middle East will not only spread American values but also improve U.S. security. As democracy grows in the Middle East, the thinking goes, the region will stop generating anti-American terrorism. Promoting democracy in the Middle East is therefore not merely consistent with U.S. security goals; it is necessary to achieve them. [26]

Studies have shown effectively no historical cases of war between democracies. In his article from 1983, Michael Doyle investigates a list of liberal states and compares this against all international wars between 1816 and 1980. [27] He determines that "constitutionally secure liberal states have yet to engage in war with one another." [28] Subsequent studies confirm this lack of war between democratic entities with statistically significant results that are not the result of random chance. [29] Investigating other possible confounders, such as geographical proximity and wealth, other analyses agree these other variables do not detract from the significance of concluding democracies rarely go to war with another democracy. [30]

Most democratic-peace affirming studies argue that democracies are as likely to go to war with non-democracies as other non-democracies and only enjoy peace with other democratic entities. [31] Certain scholars argue that democracies are less likely to go to war with other states regardless of government type. [32] These claims, however, remain in dispute and it would be premature to confirm these results indicate spreading democracy will enlarge the democratic zone of peace.

The United States hopes to encourage further democratization as it improves the welfare of other countries and promotes a more peaceful international society. Americans with concern for global peace and the citizens of other countries will see the benefits of the continued spread of democracy.

Page 5

Par 1: The argument exists that spreading democracy is worthwhile for any country that attempts to do so. It is thought democracies are much less of a threat to other countries as they are less likely to launch a war against other democratic nations. In addition a democratic country is less likely to cause an influx of refugees, forcing other countries to deal with them. Due to these reasons, and also that democracies tend to be allies to one another, spreading democracy seems to be in the best interest of any country and therefore the United States as well.

Par 2: To expand on the argument mentioned above, that spreading democracy results in less of a war threat, this idea is compelling because it suggests America would in turn experience a world containing fewer enemies. In such a world, both countries are able to enjoy more peaceful interaction and perhaps even cooperation as a result of decreased tensions. This reduction in threat level to the United States, would also by rule enhance the national security of the nation and allow for easier management of international relations. In addition, a world containing more democratic countries means an increase in support for the overall spread of democracy by nations other than the U.S. The typically problematic and authoritarian regimes include North Korea, Libya, Syria, Iran, and Sudan.

Par 3: Those in disbelief of the democratic-peace proposition have hinted that democracies have played a hand in covert action or of “state terrorism” against democracies of the world. The U.S. is in no way innocent of such acts. For example, the U.S. was involved in such actions like Iran in 1953. As stated in Sean M. Lynn-Jones paper on “Why the United States Should Spread Democracy”, he states “in each case, the target state had dubious democratic credentials. U.S. actions amounted to interference in internal affairs, but not terrorism as it is commonly understood.” Despite the claim that these acts can go both ways, the U.S. has not much to fear from other states.

Page 6

area will cease to create anti-American terrorism. President Bush has confidence that furthering and encouraging democracy in the Middle East, not only coincides with the goals of U.S. security, but is crucial to achieve these goals.

President Bush's confidence in the connection between lack of democracy and terrorism is not restricted to his administration. Throughout the 2004 presidential campaign, Senator John Kerry highlighted the need for more political change in the Middle East as an crucial part of the war on terrorism. Morton Halperin, a main policy figure in the Clinton administration, beliefs that the source of al Qaeda lies in the poverty and inadequate education of countries like; Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Pakistan, and were created by the oppressive nature of those countries and can be fought strictly through democratization.

Is the security logic for spreading democracy in the Middle East founded on a solid belief? No. However, what we do know about terrorism is only a small fraction. The data we have does not conclude that there is a strong relationship between democracy and the lack of terrorism. Al Qaeda and similar groups are not fighting against democracy in their world; terrorism groups are fighting to force their vision into reality.

Even if democracy were achieved in the Middle East, we must also be concerned about what kind of governments would it produce? Would they cooperate with the United States on important policy objectives besides curbing terrorism, such as advancing the Arab-Israel peace process, maintaining security in the Persian Gulf, and ensuring steady sullies of oil? No one can predict the course that a new democracy will take but there is concern that they are likely to produce new Islamist governments much less willing to cooperate with the United States than are current authoritarian rulers.

On the authority of the State Department's annual "Patterns of Global Terrorism" report, 269 major terrorist attacks happened in areas categorized as "free", by Freedom House, 119 happened in "partly free" areas, and 138 attacks happened in "not free" areas. This shows that there is no connection between terrorism attacks in a country and the freedoms it promotes. Looking at India, the world's biggest populated democracy, and China, the world's biggest populate authoritarian government, emphasizes how hard it is to assume that democracy can solve terrorism. Between 2000-2003, 203 terrorist attacks happened in India, whereas the amounts of attacks in China was none. If there is a connection between terrorism and authoritarian states the inconsistency between the number of terrorist attacks in China and India would be the opposite.

Democracy in the Arab world will not get rid of terrorism, but democracy will weaken the fuel for violence.

Page 7

According to the State Department's annual "Patterns of Global Terrorism" report, 269 major terrorist attacks occurred in developed "free" countries, 119 occurred in "partly free" countries, and 138 occurred in "not free" countries classified by Freedom House. Examining this statement, it is evident there is no correlation between the incidence of terrorism in a country and the amount of freedom that is given to its citizens. Assuming that democracy can solve the horrible problem of terrorism is unfortunately difficult. For example, let us compare India and China, the two most populous countries. India has a more democratic political system than China, which has an authoritarian political system. From 2000-2003, several international terrorist attacks occurred in India and none occurred in China. This is an example of how authoritarianism and terrorist threat have no relationship.

If perhaps, a Democratic system is not the answer for solving the problem of terrorism, a political system that allows more economic opportunity could be beneficial. This more open political system could weaken ideologies that are considered extremist. This adoption of a more democratic system could result in less hostile attitudes towards the United States and the ability for Arabs to participate more peacefully in the political process. When suppressing citizens' political abilities, it is less likely that stability in the political system will endure. A free and open democratic stability is proven to be the best kind of political system for a society.

Islam and Democracy

Islam and Democracy have a complex relationship in the modern world. The Muslim world consists of both individuals who deny a tie between Islam and democracy and individuals who that a democratic system would be beneficial to Islam. Although these are both opposite extreme ends of the spectrum, there are also individuals who lie in between these two extremes, who believe that Islam is support for democracy even though their political system of choice is not defined as Islamic.

On the other hand, many Muslims argue that democracy is a requirement of Islam. These Muslims would be considered "progressive Muslims". Muslim scholars are searching through the Islamic tradition and are able to connect historically important topics to the basic concepts of democracy as applicable to the current state of democracy. These topics from Islamic tradition are considered to be the key to "Islamic democracy". Most people agree that there are different forms that democracy can take in a political system, so it is important for Muslims to create their own, new system unique of what non-Muslims have done in creating democratic systems in the past.

(footnote)"There are several specific concepts Muslims cite when they explain the relationship between Islam and democracy. In the Qur'an, the righteous are described as those people who, among other things, manage their affairs through "mutual consultation" or shura(42:38 Qur'an). This is expanded through traditions of the Prophet and the sayings and actions of the early leaders of the Muslim community to mean that it is obligatory for Muslims in managing their political affairs to engage in mutual consultation Contemporary Muslim thinkers ranging from relatively conservative Islamists to more liberal modernists to Shi'ite activists emphasize the importance of consultation." (footnote)

By the late twentieth century, the concept of the caliphate involved responsibilities for all humans, in all dimensions of life, but especially the political: "Rightly, Muslims understand Khilafah as directly political....Islam requires that every Muslim be politicized (i.e., awakened, organized, and mobilized). (footnote).

Page 8

At present, Islamic democracy is, at least in theory, developed and functional. However, it is less effective in practice.

Authoritarian rulers such as Ja'far Numayri in Sudan and Zia al-Haqq in Pakistan initiated formal programs of Islamization of the law and political system in the 1980s with results that were not encouraging for democracy. A military coup brought a combination of military and civilian Islamists to rule in Sudan in 1989 and despite the proclaimed goal of creating an Islamic democracy, the regime's human rights record in terms of treatment of non-Muslim minorities and Muslim opposition groups is deplorable.

During its first decade, the Islamic Republic set narrow limitations on political participation. However, the end of the nineties saw the unprecedented presidential election victory of Mohammad Khatami, who had not been favored by the conservative religious establishment. He was reelected by an overwhelming majority again in 2001. Although there are continuing grounds for criticizing Iran in terms of its repression of opposition and minorities, increasing numbers of women and youth are voting in elections. Instead of "one man, one vote, one time," the "one man" is being joined by "one woman" as a voting force.

In addition to formal Islamic systems of politics, democracy itself has been growing, with an Islamic flavor.

Many Muslims, whether living in formally secular or formally Islamic states, see democracy as their main hope and vehicle of effective political participation. One important dimension of this participation is that despite conservative Muslim opposition to the idea of rule by a woman, the three largest Muslim states in the world -- Indonesia, Bangladesh, and Pakistan -- have had or now have elected women as their heads of government. None of these women was explicitly Islamist and one was directly opposed by an Islamist party.

Looking at this complex political situation, it becomes clear that Islam can coexist with democracy. "Political Islam" is not inherently a means to justify war or terrorism, but can be a basis for religious democracy. In the Middle East, there tends to be an overlap between democrats and Islamists. For Islamists, democracy is a way to participation in the political system, while for democrats, Islamism is a way of appealing to a wider audience. As such, the two groups often find themselves working together.

The Arabs themselves will have to determine what their democracy will be like. In order to succeed, it must be organic and have both an Arabic and Islamic character. This reform is only possible when public and private leaders put an end to such harmful behavior as religious extremism.

Page 9

For this effort, Arab leader and Arab democracy reformers from the United States, Europe and India must work together.

Arab Support for Democracy

Since the 1970's "third wave" of democratization, a myriad of countries have been observed as having a surge in support for governmental democratic structures. Support for democracy among Arab men and women, as shown in recent data from the World Values Survey in the middle east has had similar patterns to the observable trends of surging governmental democratic structures, supporting the claim that support of democracy across the Middle East is growing remarkably. Although there is growing support of democracy in the Middle East, the support for Islam has not dwindled. Many citizens in the Arab world concurrently support Democracy and Islam.

Because of this concurrent support of both ideologies, the discussion of the compatibility between Democracy and Islam has been a predominate motif within the discussions taking place in the Middle East. In dispersed spaces within the Arab World, many citizens view the foundational beliefs of Islam as inherently democratic although the western conversations and perspectives, such as the western perspective of secularism, tend to separate and juxtapose the ideologies of Islam and Democracy. The Arab world tends to deny western ideology of secularism and discussions revolving around this notion.

Page 10

Democratization as a United States Strategy for Security

United States policy in the Middle East over the past 50 years has shown that the political state of affairs in the area best served Washington's goals and interests within the Middle East. Challenges to the assumption of the United States and Middle East policy came into light after the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington DC. It is the lack of freedom in the Middle East that is the greatest threat to peace and stability. Prior to September 11, 2001, the question of a democratic Middle East was not a high priority for the Bush administration. Policy makers across the world saw the Middle East as a huge swathe of despotism that could not, should not, and would not be changed anytime soon. President Bush gave his Middle East Doctrine speech on November 6, 2003, stating that his first priority is to democratize the region despite any past policies. On numerous occasions since September 11, 2001, President Bush has expressed his belief in the power of democracy to transform the Middle East. President Bush used his second inaugural address to define an expansive new strategy for American foreign policy based on promoting freedom.

The idea that the advance of democracy beyond one's shores is vital to the security enjoyed within them is not new. It was the idea first championed by human rights dissident Andrei Sakharov, first practiced by Senator "Scoop" Jackson, and used with devastating effect by Ronald Regan to bring down the Soviet Empire, free hundreds of millions of people, and secure what was then called the West.

The 2006 National Security Strategy affirms the importance of democracy to U.S. objectives by stating: "The goal of our statecraft is to help create a world of democratic, well-governed states that can meet the needs of their citizens and conduct themselves responsibly in the international system. This is the best way to provide enduring security for the American people." President Bush has stated that: "We will use our foreign aid to promote freedom and support those who struggle non-violently for it, ensuring that nations moving toward democracy are rewarded for the steps they take." This policy assumes that democracy and the institutions that come with it provide peaceful places for people to discuss their issues and can also address the underlying issues that have caused an increase in Islamic extremism and terrorism. The goal is to create a world of well governed, properly run democratic states that can provide the needs of their citizens. The United States and her Allies are in the early years of a long struggle, achieving this goal will take the work of many dedicated generations.

Page 11

the number of Partly Free countries and territories had risen to seven with the addition of Bahrain, Lebanon, Yemen, and the Palestinian Authority. In the latter, the hopes that competitive election would lead to steps forward were dashed as a result of an incursion by Isreali military forces, as well as the continued operation of militias engaged in violence against Isreal and their own political rivals.

Sustaining New Democracies

Even though the Middle East, compared to other regions, is still struggling with the development of free institutions, the growth it has displayed since 9/11 is still cause for hope.Making the first strides to democracy can be hard ones, however, even countries with long-standing traditions of democracies have had to rely on the fundamental building blocks of "education, sustained vigilance, and active support".

Leadership in the Middle East is crucial to successful democratic transition and consolidation. One important role for international democracy supporters is to provide capacity building for new political leaders, including those in opposition to non-democratic regimes and those newly elected. The transitional period is especially critical, a democracy either takes root or flounders. Strong, political leadership is essential to establishing and sustaining democratic governance as new institutions and politicians emerge.

Building Democracy after Conflict

The United States, as well as the rest of the democratic countries around the world, has an important role to play in fostering democracy in the Middle East region, but the task will be slow and difficult given the lack of leverage over key governments in the region. This should not be entered into lightly however as former US interventions in countries to establish democracies have not all been successful and on occasion worsened the situation, such as the 1994 U.S. invasion of Haiti which have led to renewed repression, political chaos, and poor US-Haiti relations. While there are some cases which could be considered situations where U.S. intervention was a positive force in establishing democracies such as Panama where after Noriega was installed, politics in the region had achieved some amount of pluralism. However, it can be said that Panama already had experienced some amount of pluralism before Noriega. The hope with intervention is that the pressure of international response will attenuate the risk of bad actors plotting to overthrow democratic institutions.

In the Middle East, specifically in Iraq and Afghanistan, the situation requires that the United States would need to engage in an extended period of intervention in the area to establish democratic institutions which would require rebuilding on the scale of post World War II Germany and Japan. This would require the United States to invest large amounts of both time and money for this to happen. +

− It is for this reason that the Bush administration has chosen not the go through with interventions in the area. While this does not mean that the Middle East and especially Iraq will never have democratic institutions. It does mean that for a transformation to a democracy in that area will not happen cheaply or quickly.

Page 12

...however sustaining democracy requires domestic initiative, as has been the case in countries such as Chile, Poland, South Africa, and the Phillipines. The transition relies highly on the initiative of a country's progressive leaders and citizens and requires the international community to support countries not by leading the way, but by supporting them from afar. Leadership in the Middle East is crucial to successful democratic transition and consolidation. One important role for international democracy supporters is to provide capacity building for new political leaders, including those in opposition to non-democratic regimes and those newly elected. The transitional period is especially critical, as democracy either takes root or flounders. Strong, political leadership is essential to establishing and sustaining democratic governance as new institutions and politicians emerge.

Recommendations

The United States' initiative to implement democracy in the Middle East will require the help of other democratic nations, and efforts must be sustained over the long term -- well beyond the end of President Bush's second term -- if there is any hope for success. It's important that we not set the bar too high and that we make our goals clear, as are the goals of any true democracy. It must be a priority for the United States to help countries in the Middle East prioritize citizens' political and civil rights and the wholesale institutional changes that instill democratic values across the government. The United States and other democracies must be willing to lend their expertise and experience to aid Middle Eastern countries in endeavors such as establishing political parties, implementing new laws, and establishing institutional reform that is inclusive of moderate Islamist groups and other parties.

The proposed policy changes require long term support and attention on the part of the United States should they want their efforts not to go to waste. A successful approach must do the following:

1. Identifying extremist Islamist groups and classifying parties within the country as posing a threat to the establishment of democracy or complying. The United States must crack down on those who seek to impede democratic implementation and welcome those who may be willing to take part in the transition.

2. Moderate Islamist groups and other parties who will comply with the transition to democracy must be welcomed with a revamped political process that allows them a fair chance at power and incentivizes a transition to more liberal ideologies over time.

Page 14

In order to improve its relationship with the Arab states, the United States must work collaboratively with existing regimes toward gradual reform.
The lessons that the United States learned in its involvement in Arab states affairs demonstrated the importance of adequate planning for postwar reconstruction and being considerate to cultural and ideological differences when conducting a political intervention. Even though in its failure, the United States contributed to more antagonism from the nationalistic Arab states to the west, it is still possible for democracy to be established in the Middle East.
However, the road for such progresses will be long and filled with challenges. President Bush, who is the main orchestrator of US operations in the Middle East, affirmed on numerous occasions that "The democratic progress we've seen in the Middle East was not imposed from abroad, and neither will the greater progress we hope to see. He has also warned that democratic development will not come swiftly, or smoothly, to the Middle East, any more than it did to America and Europe.

Building Democracy after Conflict

The United States as well as the rest of the democratic countries around the world has an important role to play in fostering democracy in the Middle East region, but the task will be slow and difficult given the lack of leverage over key governments in the region. This should not be entered into lightly however as former US interventions in countries to establish democracies have not all been successful and on occasion worsened the situation, such as the 1994 U.S. invasion of Haiti which have led to renewed repression, political chaos, and poor US-Haiti relations. While there are some cases which could be considered situations where U.S. intervention was a positive force in establishing democracies such as Panama where after Noriega was installed, politics in the region had achieved some amount of pluralism. However, it can be said that Panama already had experienced some amount of pluralism before Noriega. The hope with intervention is that the pressure of international response will attenuate the risk of bad actors plotting to overthrow democratic institutions.

In the Middle East, specifically in Iraq and Afghanistan, the situation requires that the United States would need to engage in an extended period of intervention in the area to establish democratic institutions which would require rebuilding on the scale of post World War II Germany and Japan. This would require the United States to invest large amounts of both time and money for this to happen.

It is for this reason that the Bush administration has chosen not the go through with interventions in the area. While this does not mean that the Middle East and especially Iraq will never have democratic institutions. It does mean that for a transformation to a democracy in that area will not happen cheaply or quickly.