Introduction

In 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 Statement

One 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.

The
concept of democratization has received attention from various researchers
(Volpi, 2013; Akgün, Perçinoğlu & Senyücel Gündoğar, 2010; Haynes, 2013).
However, a majority of these researchers focus their studies on the history of
political regimes and few fully address the democratization process. Furthermore,
most of these researchers use outdated information that is not in line with the
current democratic reforms. Due to this gap in the literature, there is lack of
information on how democratic systems work. In addition, there no sufficient
data on the factors that can accelerate transition to democracy. Grugel &
Bishop (2013) contend that studies on democratic transitions are imperative to
provide both citizens and political leaders with knowledge and evidence that it
is possible to implement a successful democratic system. The answer to Middle
East conflicts lies in the establishment of democratic system in Middle East
countries. The current study aims address this problem by filling the gap that
exists in the literature on democratization in Middle East countries.

Discussion of Methodology

The
objective of this discussion is to analyse the democratization process in Turkey
and Iraq. Data needed for this analysis is only obtainable from secondary
sources. Secondary data collection method was preferred for various reasons.
First, it is a readily available source of data and this saves both time and
money. Second, secondary data is easily accessible from library books and internet
sources. Although Wilson (2010) argues that secondary-sources provide low-quality
data, this limitation was delimitated by sourcing from government sources and
other official institutions. The other research method that the researcher
could have used is primary methodology. In primary methods, surveys are used to
collect data through data is collected through surveys using interviews and
questionnaires (Wilson, 2010). It was impossible to use this method because the
research could not access the target population in Iraq and Turkey through
surveys.

While
using secondary methods, the researcher used data from articles, books,
government websites, and trade institutions. While searching for articles on the
internet, the researcher used key words. It was critical to use key words
because they ensured the collection of only relevant data only. The key words
used 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 several
possible options. The researcher used the inclusion and exclusion criteria to
determine the articles to subject to critical analysis. These criteria are on
three key factors: the relevance of the article, expertise of the authors and
year of publication. The table below illustrates the inclusion and exclusion
criteria.

Table 1: The inclusion
and exclusion criteria

The
study used recursive abstraction to analyse data collected from secondary
sources, which involves analysing the collected data without coding (Wilson,
2010). Therefore, under recursive abstraction, there was repeated analysis and
summarization of data sets to achieve until data that is more compact. The
study observed ethical consideration. The researcher observed the plagiarism
rule by paraphrasing information or quoting while giving credit to the original
researchers. In addition, adhering to the specification of the above inclusion
and exclusion criteria improved the reliability and validity of the study
findings.

Literature Review

Various
researchers have attempted to define democratization process. According to one
researcher, democratization process is the transition to a democratic political
system (Asmerom & Reis, 2016). Anderson (2012) contends that it refers to substantive
and significant political changes towards a democratic direction. Overall, democratic
process may be a transition from a dictatorship system into a full democratic
system or from a dictatorship into a semi-democratic system or from a
semi-dictatorship into a democratic system. Furthermore, such a transition may
result in a success, like in the United Kingdom, or it may face criticisms and
frequent changes such as in Argentina (Capoccia & Ziblatt, 2010). The
expected outcome of any democratization process is to make sure that citizens
have are allowed to vote and a freedom of expression in their political system.

According
to Francis Fukuyama in his classical studies The End of History and the Last Man, liberal democracy is a form of
human government (Cederman, Hug & Krebs, 2010). In response to this claim,
Samuel P.Huntingtom wrote The Third Wave
defining global democratization trend in form of three waves. The first wave brought
democracy to Northern America and Western Europe whereas the second wave was
the emergence of authoritarian system during the Interwar period. According to
Samuel, the third wave began in 1974 is still ongoing up to date. An example of
the 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 that
has gone through all these waves democracy. During the 15^th century,
the Ottoman Empire dominated and ruled the Middle East and when the Empire
collapsed, the Western armies occupied the region. Ginsburg (2012) posits that
a political power that emerges from both financial means and legitimacy is what
motivates governments. Democratic governments attain legitimacy through the voice
of the people in an open election while economic means from appropriate tax
systems generate a vibrant economy.

Various
factors trigger the democratization process including the civil society, history,
and economic development. Although there is an underlying debate concerning the
factors that accelerate or undermine the democratization, most have mentioned
factors like wealth, culture, social equality, foreign intervention, foreign
trade, education, international cooperation among others. Concerning wealth, Grugel
& Bishop (2013) argue that a high gross domestic product relates to democracy
in that the wealthiest democracies do not practice authoritarianism. For example,
the rise of the Nazis in Germany and Hitler is a counter example; the Great
Depression was a major blow to the already poor economy of Germany and this
accelerated an autocratic system (Ishiyama, 2011). Moreover, during the
industrial revolution, most countries did not have democratic system and this
implies that wealth is a key factor in the democratization process.

The
findings of Møller & Skaaning (2012) study show that economic development
increases the chances of achieving a democratic system of government. Similarly,
Lindberg & Sverrisson (2016) discovered that various aspects of economic
development such as wealth, urbanization, and democratization are closely
related democratic regimes. The modernization theory explains the factors of
wealth, education, urbanization, and industrialization.  According to this theory, societies progress
from traditional into modern societies, which have a good education system,
industries, and development of towns; all these factors are antecedents of a
democratic society. Research shows that education results in greater political
tolerance, reduces inequality, and increases the chances of citizens to take
part in political matters (Moran & Parry, 2015).

Besides
wealth, Qi & Shin (2011) suggest a relationship between social equality and
democratic transition. The likelihood of democratization in an egalitarian
society is low because people have less incentive to revolt. In unequal
societies, redistribution of power and wealth will be harmful to the elites who
will do everything to prevent democratization. This notion is in line with
findings from empirical researches that show democracy more achievable in egalitarian
societies (Savun & Tirone, 2011; Sørensen, 2010). There are also various
claims that some cultures significantly promote values of democracy compared to
others. People consider the Western culture, for example, to contain values
that make democracy possible and desirable. Foreign intervention especially
military intervention also triggers the initiation of democratization as
evidenced in Germany and Japan after the Second World War. However, in other cases
such as in Syria, decolonization encouraged a transition into democratic systems
and dictatorship regimes later replaced these systems.

Description and Evaluation of Research Findings

Democratization Process in Iraq

The
history of political systems in Iraq dates back to the Baath regime that was
characterized by decades of wars, tyranny and oppression that left the Iraqi
society divided, lacking initiatives and susceptible to various sensitivities. The
Baath regime operated under a one-party system; a dictatorship form of
leadership. Under this regime, the single party dominated every political and
social life of the citizens, backed by spying and killing of innocent lives
suspected of disloyalty (Bengio, 2012). However, after the successful removal of
the Baath regime in 2003, the country began its transition from a dictatorship
regime into a democratic one (Bridoux & Russell, 2013). Transition to a
democratic system in Iraq began in 2003 and this transition has grown from
direct US rule to their partial withdrawal until the full administration of the
country by Iraqis themselves (Brynen et
al., 2012). According to Diamond (2010), succession of leadership in the Iraqi
government involved the use cops and violence between 1958 and 2003. However,
since the country reclaimed sovereignty in 2004, they have tried to hold
general and provincial elections, write a constitution, and exercise a peaceful
transfer of parliamentary life and political power (Diamond, 2010).

Despite
this process, Elbadawi & Makdisi (2010) argue that the slow transition to
democracy and a couple of challenges in democratization still impact on many
Iraqis. The scope of the central government’s powers and the issues of
federalism still divide the country. Additionally, there is the conflict of
identity of Iraq as a democratic nation yet national interests such as Islamic
(Mumtaz, 2010), drive its policies. Moreover, Khalilzad (2010) highlights
corruption as one of the negative factors of post-2003 period in Iraq. The
three forms of corruption present in Iraq are financial, administrative, and
political and each contributes singly to the democratization process. The
failure to curb corruption as stipulated by a democratic regime is evident in
the using apathy among Iraqis and their diminishing confidence in their
country. Corruption has continued immensely to instability and political
violence resulting in lack of economic progress (Sadiki, 2014).

In
relation to the electoral politics, Miller (2010) states that the electorate
and politicians in the country still do not trust the performance-based appeal
and instead, are still rooted the comfort zones of sectarian and ethnic affinities.
So far, since its transition to democracy, the Iraqi election results reflect
the ethnic and sectarian composition of the country. Selim (2012) posits that
ethnic and sectarian factors encourage political leaders to slow the
improvement of a country’s condition and cub factors like corruption. Furthermore,
election of candidates in Iraq depends on sub-identities, and this further
denies the country a leader who can inspire the citizens from sectarian and
ethnic backgrounds.

Despite
the current challenges during the process of democratization in Iraq, Miller (2012)
argues that there is hope for democracy in the country. The withdrawal of the
US forces from Iraq accelerated its transition to democracy. As per evidence
from empirical research, the presence of the United States focussed on securing
political outcomes. However, these outcomes only guaranteed the safety of the
US troops but did not necessarily impact on a healthy transition to democracy
(Paya & Esposito, 2010).Natarajan (2011) argues that democracy involves
control of an organization by a majority of its members in order to address the
issues that are special to that organization. Therefore, the presence of the US
troops interfered with this process. With the US out of the way, the detractors
of the political policies were able to debate over vital policies. Besides the
withdrawal of the US troops, Tarrow (2013) reports on the improving performance
of countries judicial system.

Santos
& Teixeira (2013) report that since its transition, the judiciary exercises
the rule of law by ruling of law through based on solid grounds. According to
the 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 the
rule of law in court; a continual of this trend can accelerate the
democratization process for Iraq. In addition, the new culture of subjecting
the power of the armed forced to civilian control is a positive move into full democracy.
The Iraqi military operates through destructive mechanisms in politics since
the coup in 1936 (Tarrow, 2013). However, Bengio (2012) states that due to
democratization, the army is adhering to a stringent professional policy of civilian
command and this is a great move to a democratic system.

According
to Tosun (2014), democratization process in Iraq faces obstacles from international
sanctions and an economy devastated by war.  Additionally, there is a political culture of
submission, fear, intolerance, and suspicion; a flattened landscape in which
any opposition to Baath was driven underground; hostile neighbours whose dictatorship
system is threatened by the idea of a democratic Iraq and a nation deeply
driven by regional and ethnic divisions. Therefore, before achieving democracy in
Iraq, Bridoux & Russell (2013) outline four preconditions that will ensure
a smooth democratization process. First, the citizens must be conversant with
how a democratic system works. In relation to this, Diamond (2010) argues that
it is necessary for citizens to understand the constituents of a democratic
government because their opinions are contingent upon such information.
Similarly, Khalilzad (2010) asserts that information on how a democratic regime
works is vital for citizens to be involved and understand the taking place
around them. This is because without such information, citizens are unable to
make informed choices about policies and political leaders.

Second,
a country’s level of economic development greatly influences the outcome of
democracy. As stated in earlier discussions, economic development relates with
democracy. Therefore, it is very vital for Iraq to develop economically in
order to maintain a democratic system of government. As hailed by the modernization
theory, Iraq must create jobs, promote education, and improve infrastructure in
order to transform from a traditional economy into a modern one (Mumtaz, 2010).
Third, a change of religion is necessary for Iraq. In Iraq, Muslims believe
that violence is the solution to every controversy. If Iraqi citizens could shift
away from this tyrannical religion, then the process of democratization will be
easy. Lastly, every citizen in Iraq should have access to social justice.
Sadiki (2014) argues that social is imperative to prevent abuses of basic human
rights and enhance social and personal development of citizens.

Democratization Process in Turkey

Turkey
has been in the midst of a complex democratization process since the ends of
the 1980 coup d’état (Akgün, Perçinoğlu & Senyücel Gündoğar, 2010). Grigoriadis
(2010) states that since Turkey conducted its first election after the coup, it
has undergone vital transformations that have greatly influenced its
democratization process. Keyman (2010) argues that Turkey’s candidacy for EU membership
particularly is a catalyst for a broad social and political spectrum that
contributes positively to the achievement of political reforms. Although the process
of democratization in Turkey has been slow and majorly characterized by
piecemeal reforms, Kuymulu (2013) states that it has not met all the criteria
that is inherent in a liberal democracy. Turkey’s democratization process has
faced both moments of acceleration and obstacles. The country lacks unity
between the parties in terms of objectives and legislative reforms that relate
to the democratization process. A major indicator of these obstacles is the
shortcoming in the process of adopting a new constitution in 2011 (Kuymulu,
2013).

Although
democratization in Turkey was interrupted in the past by the military (coup,
military takeover and the postmodern coup d’état), it has achieved significant
success. Since its transition to democracy, Turkeys has succeeded in the
implementation of various reforms. The government introduced substantial
reforms on relationships between the civil society and the military, the judiciary
and privacy of personal life. For much of Turkish history, the military has exerted
influence into political affairs. According to Tezcür (2010), Turkey has
undergone a tremendous military led transition from an autocratic one into a
democratic one. Concerning the judiciary, the Turkey government is practicing
the rule of law. To deal with the memoirs of the authoritarian regime, the
judiciary has brought to justice the generals involved in the 1980 coup.

Besides
that, the recent “peace process” by the government of Turkey created hope that
the Kurdish problem can be resolved and the country can achieve democracy (Tezcür,
2010). The findings one survey in Turkey shows that around 60% of the
population are in favour of the peace process and this implies that the
citizens desire a democratic government (Tosun, 2014). Moreover, Öniş (2010)
states that in a democratic system, the people must be free to air their voice
on political matters. To comply with this democratic rule, Turkey has given rights
to community foundations and the freedom of expression to its citizens (Öniş,
2010). Turkey has also succeeded in the areas of abolishment of the death
penalty, freedom of religion and reform of detention centres and prisons.

The
success of transition to democracy in Turkey is also evident in the
relationship between the government and the civil society. The concept of civil
society is strong in Turkey and the government has become the actor of social
change through values like trust, social stability and social responsibility (Öniş,
2013). The civil society organizations (CSOs) in Turkey have influenced
modernization and democratization. Grigoriadis (2010) states that these
organizations implement values of democracy in people thus building their trust
and confidence in democratic systems. However, Keyman (2010) argues that a
reform of Turkey’s educational system will further enhance the contributions of
the civil society to democracy.

Despite
this success, the democratization of Turkey in the recent years has become part
of a reverse wave. For democratization to succeed, Rodriguez et al. (2013)
assert that the citizens must accept the process. In Kuymulu (2013) attitude
survey, 8% of the Turks state that they disliked the American views on
democracy claiming that it encourages the “subjects” to regard it as an
imposition. Furthermore, as per Robert Dahl, a democratic theorist, no country has
ever had a government that fully adheres to the criteria of a democratic
process (Rodriguez et al., 2013).
Tezcür (2010) identified three dimensions of democracy that include the level
of political participation, the degree of political competition and the influence
of political and civil liberties. In the Turkish case, these dimensions may be
broken down into the role of Islam, the role of the military and the place of
Turkish nationalism.

Although
the 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 its
own use of force within a framework created by law (Tosun, 2014). Öniş (2013)
argues that the role of the Turkish military as being “above society” and
acting independently from the citizens continues to reverse the country to
Ottoman times. Tezcür (2010) argues that if the “guardian” role of the military
threatens the political class, then it will have problems in abandoning
patronage resources. For example, after the 1980 coup, although the civil
government owned the Constitution, the military had a privileged place. It is
for this reason that Kuymulu (2013) posits that the attitude of the military in
its relationship with the government is still a huge barrier to the
democratization process.

The
Turkish nationalism and the creation of a political community is also a barrier
towards a transition to democracy. Modern democracy is contingent upon
implementing and sustaining a political community. As Keyman (2010) asserted,
it is impossible for the citizens to decide until someone decides for them. In
a political community, people trust and respect each other without knowing each
other. Democracy entails that the government that loses in election is
confident 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 but
strives to compete with the existence of the policy itself. Therefore, the
defensive nature of the Turkish nationalism means that it is impossible to
express the cultural rights of minority communities. For example, although the
government has permitted broadcasting in other languages, the use of this other
languages is illegal in the political life.

The
state of Islam in Turkey is also a barrier to achieving modern democracy. Over
the past decade, Islam presents major challenges to the democratization process
and there has been a negative relationship between democracy and Islam (Grigoriadis,
2010). While democracy call for a separation between the private and public
dimensions of life, in Turkey, there is, a single interpretation of Islam does
not allow for this separation (Keyman, 2010). Modern Islam accepts the
separation between democracy and religion but do not deem it right to
quarantine their religious life to private life. Therefore, Turkish military’s effort
to suppress moderate Islam to public life is a threat to religion and pushes
moderates to radical measures that negatively affect democratization.

Summary of Findings

The
process of democratization is slow and faces many obstacles in both Turkey and
Iraq. In
Iraq, the various achievements in its democratization process include the
improvement of the electorate, implementation of the rule of law and freedom of
expression to the civil society. However, democratization in Iraq faces
challenges from economic sanctions, regional and ethnic divisions, and
sectarian affinities. On the other hand, in Turkey, the process of
democratization seems to be a success. This is because, so far, the country has
abolished death penalties, the civil society has the freedom of expression, and
the peace process has suppressed ethnic conflicts. Despite this success, Turkey
still faces challenges from the dominant role of the military, the restriction
of use of Islam in public life and a conflict between the political community
and nationalism. Based on this analysis, Iraq is partly democratic while Turkey
is a fully democratic country.

References

• Akgün, M., Perçinoğlu, G., & Senyücel Gündoğar, 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.
• Öniş, Z. (2010). Contesting for the “center”: domestic politics, identity conflicts and the controversy over EU membership in Turkey (Doctoral dissertation, İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi).
• Öniş, 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. Uluslararası 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.