On the contrary, if the costs of the elections are too low, the result is almost the same as above: the quality of the elections will be compromised. The elections could be of such poor quality that democracy can only come out as a loser. According to the circumstances, for example, for countries coming out of a deep crisis, economic worries could constitute a sure threat to stability and peace. The core questions therefore are: how to avoid(1) costly elections (whatever the quality may be), because it will not only be a luxury for the country, but may even reduce the chances of the consolidation of democracy; and(2) elections where the concern to reduce costs would compromise the minimum guarantees of quality, thus becoming a danger to the democratic system. In other words, the issue is how to rationalize the cost of democracy in striking the best quality/price balance. With regards to this issue, the practice in the sub-region reveals some countries where the elections are quite costly and others where the commission and the political authorities seem to have a certain control over the costs. A good example: The electoral commission of Burkina Faso On this count, it is proper to take a close look at Burkina Faso, which is one of the countries where elections have become the least expensive in the sub-region. In the graph below, the costs are presented in million Euros(vertical axis). Benin is an example where election costs are very high. It is interesting to note that in spite of the relatively low level of costs in Burkina compared to that of Benin, the quality of the Burkina Faso electoral process is however at an acceptable level. 187