A real good piece, it points out a couple of really excellent points about the whole "bring democracy toi the ME" thing.


A critical article on "democracy" appeared last Monday in the widely read Washington Post that deserves attention. Journalist Peter Baker argued that the Bush Administration staked its reputation (no pun intended) to work towards an end of tyranny. The author concluded that "the march of freedom seemed stalled", because so few were "committed to his vision". What is one to make of this?

It is fairly obvious that there are not too many ways to encourage the spread of democracy. One can encourage change in a particular country, to adopt tested institutions (parliaments, courts, free press, etc...), or modify mechanisms to eliminate less stellar features. Either way, one almost always redefines democracy, for unlike goods and services, little of it can be imposed from outside.


LINK

Pushing democracy in the ME is a waste of time if we expect it to be anything like our style of democracy. They still live under the tribal mentality. We may be able to get the governments to cooperate, but the people are still going to do as they see fit.

This is my personal opinion--I do not think that pushing democracy is a waste of time; however forcing democracy is the quickest way for it not to be ever tried.