(1)That you can impose Democracy on people.
(2) That it makes any idealistic or practical sense, to seek to impose Democracy on any people, where there are not certain ingredients, which make it likely to work.
(3)That imposing Democracy on people, who have demonstrated that they hate one another, is likely to engender either peace or good feeling in a region.
Great comments, Ohioan. (I'm an Ohioan too.) Still, given the requirements of a democracy (educated populace, middle class), I'd say both Iraq and Iran can choose democracy, if they wish. We can only offer them the choice, which they do not have now. The killer word in your list is "impose". To "impose" is to dictate, the antithesis of democracy. Mr. Ladeen did not use that word in his essay. Our assumption, good or bad, is that Iraq and Iran will choose democracies, given the choice. I feel certain that is true in Iran; I'm less sanguine about Iraq. I expect a military dictatorship there, post-Saddam.
Put another way, one of the great weaknesses of democracy is that it allows people to enslave themselves as they did when Hitler was elected or Allende in Chile. Hence the value of our Bill of Rights and Constitution.
Finally, Pokey, add me to the Ladeen list.
I promised earlier to return, and augment my post #22. I have picked your comment as capturing the essence of the argument, here.
The requirements of "democracy," do indeed include an educated population, and a middle-class, as you suggest. Put, slightly differently, the basic concept requires three things to work anywhere:
1. You have to have a population with sufficient intelligence among the average member, to actually understand the functions and purposes of Government.
2. You have to have a population that has been educated in the enduring values of their own Society--a population which has a frame of reference within which to make decisions with respect to the application of Government to their ongoing existence as a people.
3. You have to have a population with sufficient leisure time to reflect on those who seek office, and how they measure up with respect to the functions and purposes of your Government.
You assume that having an educated middle-class, you will meet these criteria. But are you certain that the educated middle-class in Iran is potentially as dominant as the educated middle-class in Switzerland, where Democracy really has worked for an extended period? Are you certain that there is not a large under-class that may be easily exploited by demagogues, first as a swing vote, and then as a basis for obtaining an elective tyranny?
Yet, even if you are, we have but scratched the surface of the problem. As Madison pointed out, minorities are the real victims of Democracy. Are there not small tribal entities in all of the countries that the writer would, in effect, seek to remake, who have different social priorities than the middle-classes that you see being potentially dominant? For such as these, can anyone really suggest that "Democracy" has any connection whatsoever to Freedom?
Consider, for example, what would happen if the philosophy of the "Civil Rights" movement in America--something which some Conservatives are now actually embracing at this venue--were to be applied in Iran. Forcing these tribal groups into common schools; abolishing their right to confine their more intimate business dealings to their own, could very shortly destroy the existence of ethnic groups that have survived for many centuries. Does that serve the cause of Freedom?
Don't misunderstand me. I am not suggesting that Sadam is a champion of ancient small nations, now under the umbrella of modern Iraq. He has done monstrous things to some of these peoples. But a modern "Democracy," is scarcely likely to be much better. Far better, in such an environment, a Government where the leader--be he King, Emir, Caliph, or whatever--assumes that he is answerable first to Allah, for his stewardship of all of his peoples, than to a one-man, one-vote Democracy. For, it is very likely, that even with that educated middle-class, that even if a majority of that educated middle-class are men who value toleration; that all too soon, such new "Democracies," will degenerate into what you see now in country after country in Africa. How can anyone be certain that more "Democracies" in the third world, will not result in more Mugabe style Zimbabwes, where the mob, not the "Middle-Class" is supreme?
So it is not only a politically able mainstream, educated and affluent, that is required. It is a common identity, a shared tradition--in short a common value system. In America, we had great diversity among the States--and a very limited Federal Government, that only had authority to act in areas where we had a common value system.
But let me bring this subject very close to home. When Bob Dornan lost his seat in what had been a Conservative district in California, because of the influx from South of the border, was that evidence of "Democracy" working in America? Putting completely aside, his charge that many voted illegally; does anyone think that those voters who made the difference, really understood the traditional role of the United States House of Representatives, were really wedded to time-honored American values, or really should have been determining the future fate of the America we love?
There is no magic in counting noses. When counting noses, permits unconscionable men to gain power, it becomes a threat to all that is honorable and decent. This whole question of "Democracy," as a panacea for all human political problems, needs to be carefully reexamined. The more carefully it is examined, the more compelling will seem Madison's comment in Federalist Paper #10.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site [Where there are numerous articles relevant to this subject.]