This is also important regarding the second strength of his argument. Historically speaking, a theocracy is usually not democratic and will more often than not cease to be a theocracy when effective democracy becomes the norm. Perfect examples of this are: the Papal States before Italian unification, currently the Islamic Republic of Iran, England before the glorious revolution, Spain during the reign of Isabella and Ferdinand, Pakistan currently, and the list could continue. These examples make Huntington's argument more convincing and show that, almost always, for a country to become democratic it must make Church and State two separate entities. This is because theocracies are usually governed in a way that closely resembles a monarchy; those in power are not elected; they are given power. However, Huntington's argument also has some weaknesses. The biggest is his black-and-white view of democracy, especially his two-round test. Here he explains that if a country remains a democracy after two transitions of power then it is considered a successful democracy. This is clearly an oversimplification of what it means to be democratic. According to this definition, Iraq would be