Many studies and ideas talked about the different types of democracy and how they contrast from one group of people to another, however, they share the same principles. Further thoughts dictated by countries capable of applying its requirements and pursue its objectives without putting the country to the risk of disintegration. Europe, as well as other countries, managed to successfully create a global system that has the ingredients of survival. However, the success of the Nazi party to rule, later renounced the principles of democracy requirements, turned into a racist party and sparked World War II, came as a warning to other countries or regime that trying to cross red line. The Nazism experience almost succeed again when the fascist freedom party in Austria, led by “Jorge Haider” nearly succeeded in year 2000 election. Election result was rejected by the European countries and threatened to imposed sanction on Austria should the party allowed to participate in a coalition government. The result was a re-election in two years only for the party to lose heavily. Democracy is, therefore, not absolute and has to be restricted to prevent extremist or fascist party. This scenario was adopted in many Islamic countries such as Turkey, Indonesia and Algeria, to combat military. The two Asian countries had succeeded after a bitter struggle to neutralize the military and restore democracy. This paved the way for Indonesia and Turkey to emerge among countries with successful economies. Islamist in Algeria, on the other hand, won the free democratic election but once they win they sought to monopolize power and to prevent other parties' participation in government. The army intervened and the conflict had turned into near civil war. This is a scenario of immature experience. While the nonviolent experience in Egypt and Tunisia may tend to develop experience that fits their existing situation, but what if the Islamists won (regardless of the name of their party) and put forward the idea of multi-party system but through a constitution to suit their ideas, or have a government that accepts diversity partisan to proof their success in passing an undisputed democratic system? In this case the opposition party, being liberal, religions or other sects, will see that Islamic government as custodians of them and unlikely to relinquish their ideology and Islamic Sharia, the sources of legislation or constitution. The pressure from major country cannot be ignored of which some may accept the Turkish style. The argument is likely to drag on as those countries fear a surrounding Islamic regimes inspired by Al-Qaeda principles and theories. The expectations are rather pessimistic in the absence of a successful civil state model and only time will tell.
