It's been suggested by some that the reason this occurs is that the fanatics actually have the Koran on their side. That's why Muslim majorities almost always tend become radicalized.
If what you suggest is true--that there exist a sizable number of moderate Muslims but that they tend to just go along (as in submit?), why would you assume this will change upon the institution of democracy-- which for now we'll define as form of government which conducts popular elections?
Does the concept of free will exist anywhere within the Islamic world?
But they haven't always become radicalized. When the Eastern Orthodox and Jews of the Middle East were given a choice between being ruled by a Muslim or Christian Crusader, they often chose the Muslim because the Muslims treated them better. And there are plenty of cases where the Muslims were simply nicer and more honorable people than the Crusaders who fought them. In fact, during the Fifth Crusade, Saladin offered to trade Damietta in Egypt for Jerusalem and it was the Crusaders who refused.
Plenty of atheists make the exact same argument against Judaism and Christianity, looking at the blood on the hands of historical Jews and Christians as well as the blood shed within the Bible the same way you are looking at Muslims and the Quran.
Many of the problems with Islam seem to be related to the Sunna, Hadith, and Sharia, along with tradition, and not the Quran, itself. Out of that, moderate Islam is certainly a possibility.
As a Christian, do I think I'm right and Muslims are wrong? Of course. But I also think it's clear that there are Muslims who love God just as there are Jews that love God and I think that can transcend theology and make somebody a good person. And I don't think Muslims should be converted at the end of a sword any more than I think they should be converting people at the end of a sword.
If what you suggest is true--that there exist a sizable number of moderate Muslims but that they tend to just go along (as in submit?), why would you assume this will change upon the institution of democracy-- which for now we'll define as form of government which conducts popular elections?
You need to remember that Judaism and Christianity went through similar transformations. The Jewish Zealots tried to be violent and radical against Roman oppression and it ultimately didn't work. The Judaism that evolved out of that bad experience was both peaceful and productive. Similarly, Christianity went through phases of not only heresies but time as an imperial religion and managed to get over it.
The key is to get Muslims to seperate the religious sphere of their life from the political sphere. If they can do that, as my friends have, they'll be OK. Can I guarantee that will happen? Of course not. But I think it's certainly possible, if not probable. As I said, look to Iran. They've seen the theocracy and every knows it's bad. In fact, the reason why Sistani doesn't want a theocracy is that he sees how it has corrupted the religious leaders of Iran.