I think the argument proposed by most Western societies is that in general, a move to democratic principles as an aftermath of the current Middle Eastern turmoil is a good thing.

This argument is based, I believe, on the assumption that the majority of Middle Eastern citizenry are moderate and therefore no institutionalised or formalised "Radical States" will emerge, or at least be less likely to emerge.

Leaving aside the glaring examples of the Gaza Strip or Iran (both illustrate the use of a sham democratic process that result in radicalism), I believe that this argument fails.

If one examines the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, it is only within the lax and legally protected environments of democratic states that enables extremism to be "operationalised".

In dictatorial states, where the will exists, extremism is quashed ruthlessly, or conversely, nurtured.

Regardless of where the funding of extremism comes from, the implementation of extremist strategies is best nurtured, for a range of reasons, in democtratic states.

The funding  of extremism probably comes largely from the wealthy dictatorial states or wealthy individuals within those states who have gained their wealth from the dictatorial structure of the state which has "bestowed" on them enormous economic and financial favours.

I suspect that the possible outcome of the current Middle Eastern turmoil will be the overthrow of most non-democratic states and their replacement with largely and initially, "non-extreme" democratic governments. Over time however, extremism will nurture independently of governments and be exported globally.

Western governments will struggle to deal with this trend as, on the face of it, they will be forced to deal with democratically elected governments. In the past, one could develop a relationship with the "ruler" or dictator and that relationship could be engineered to deliver the particular needs of a foreign power - even if unpopular with the "public". An example of this was Egypt's antipathy to Hamas in relation to the Gaza Strip or even Egypt's and Jordan's peace treaties with Israel.

In the future, a government that appeases the West where the appeasement is in conflict with the will of "the public", will have to face that public at the next election. This is a much more difficult achievement.

Add to this the growing influence of Muslims in Western and democratic societies and the increasing dis-inclination of Western governments to disenfranchise a growing proportion of their constituencies. The birth rate of Muslims in Western societies is often many times that of non-Muslims - thus  this influence will grow and become more acute. In France it is reported that Muslims exceed 13%-14% of the population at the moment and growing rapidly.

The upside however, is the potential that a democratic society composed of a majority of moderate and reasonable people, will deliver a fairer and more equitable society for itself. A moderate society will, in theory, shun extremism of any nature or origin.

Although that is the hope, one needs to remember that the US, the "flag-bearer" of democratic states, is the home of a growing number of its own extremists - both politically and religiously.

Therefore, democracy in and of itself is unlikely to be the panacea of all current and potential threats that the world currently faces from extremism.

My hope is optimistic while my expectation is pessimistic.