I regard the endorsement of both the objective and a method – which can differ from one country to another- of democratization by the parties in the region as a basic requisite of democratization in the Middle East.

Everyone should unconditionally accept that Israel is an indispensable element of the Middle Eastern mosaic.

The Muslim world and its subset the countries of the Middle East have been left behind in the marathon of political, economic and human development. For that, there is a tendency to blame others as the primary cause.

Several experts on the Middle East concur that the Middle East cannot be democratized.

A confidence problem exists on the part of the people of the region who desire democratic rule in principle, but remain suspicious of both the fashion with which democratization is presented and the purposes of the democratic world.

I should like to repeat what I stated recently in the Jeddah Economic Forum in Saudi Arabia: It won’t be the religion, but rather the world-view of some of its followers that shall be made current.

The foundations of democratic transition should be laid in accordance with a sincere and committed strategy that is supported by various policy tools, and implemented wisely.

Therefore, the question is not whether such democratization is possible, but instead how to meet the yearning of the masses in the Middle East for democracy; in other words, how to achieve democratization in the Middle East.

The advanced levels which the democratic world has attained at the end of lengthy processes may have created the perception in the region that democracy is a distant concept; this perception can be addressed.

Invariably, also a Palestinian state should live side by side with Israel within recognized and secure borders and the security and prosperity of the Palestinian people must be guaranteed.

Similarly, it is argued that the culture of Islam is incompatible with democracy. Basically, this conventional perspective of the Middle East thus contends that democracy in that region is neither possible nor even desirable.

Even in the Western world, one cannot argue that the ideal has been achieved given the existence of issues like the integration, participation and representation of Muslim citizens, and occasional but lingering anti-Semitism.

I am aware of the thesis that the United States has long since invested exclusively in stability and this has obviated democratic transformation in the Middle East.

In other words, the bar should be maintained at the level of a pluralistic and participatory democracy.

A lasting solution to this problem will have an exceptionally positive influence foremost on the peoples of Palestine and Israel, as well as on the region and the international community.

What should be targeted is a concept of organic, and not just mechanic, democracy that preserves the rule of law, separation of powers, and that is participatory and pluralistic.

It is obvious that putting the Arab-Israeli dispute on a resolution track would be an important element of overcoming the confidence problem in the region.

In this context, social consensus, and institutions that embody this consensus, must be made effective in order for democratization not to be abused as a provisional instrument to establish an anti-democratic regime.

The US and the European Union needs to help in the translation of the demand for democracy into a political will.

It is essential that policy instruments be developed that would firmly establish democratization on the basis of social consensus and enable transformation on stable grounds.

I regard the endorsement of both the objective and a method – which can differ from one country to another- of democratization by the parties in the region as a basic requisite of democratization in the Middle East.

Paramount is the need to secure human rights. The form of rule should be such that the citizen does not have to fear the State, but gives it direction and confidently participates in its administration.

As a politician who cherishes religious conviction in his personal sphere, but regards politics as a domain belonging outside religion, I believe that this view is seriously flawed.

Therefore, the observation must be explicitly made: In the Middle East and in the Muslim world, suspicions linger concerning the objectives of the West and notably the US.

According to this view, democracy is a product of western culture, and it cannot be applied to the Middle East which has a different cultural, religious, sociological and historical background.

Similarly, gender-equality, supremacy of law, political participation, civil society, and transparency are among the indispensable elements that are the imperatives of democratization.

However, democracy cannot be defined as the existence of parliaments and elections alone.

But foremost, I do not subscribe to the view that Islamic culture and democracy cannot be reconciled.

A fitting external security environment could also play an important role in promoting social consensus and institutionalization towards democratization.

Even as we ought to accept that each country would progress with a different method and speed toward that goal, the standard for the expected end-state should not be lowered.

My visit to the United States has also given me the opportunity to emphasize the objective of establishing close and intensive links between the Turkish and American peoples, scholars and businessmen.

There exists an unmistakable demand in the Middle East and in the wider Muslim world for democratization.

The purpose cannot be creating self-styled democracies, but rather encouraging steps that are conducive to establishing democratic rule at universal standards. Obviously, this would be a formidable journey.

I take the debate on the method of promoting democracy seriously.