Some folks seem to be of the opinion that all the world needs is more Democracy. Everything will turn out just fine if this government, that country and the regime over there, somewhere, all depose their kings, emirs and 'beloved leaders' and hold elections. Preferably tomorrow, if not sooner.

I can understand the impulse. Democracy is, after all, one of the better forms of government to be had. But Democracy is also, to paraphrase H.L. Mencken, the theory that the people know what they want, and deserve to get it - good and hard. In other words, they get it hard, and it won't necessarily be too good for America.

Take Palestine as an example. Yasser Arafat was once asked why he didn't seem to be in much of a hurry to start a democratic process for the Palestinian people. Why no elections? - they asked him - Why no candidates? Why no democracy?

His answer was something along the lines of "If I held the election today, Hammas would be in charge tomorrow." And that could, of course, just be more bull$^&* from a master of the art: another act of fear-mongering from a withered, old tyrant who feels the winds of change on his back but can't get up off the floor to close the window, anymore. "Vote for me or it's World War III."

But there's also - sadly - more than an element of truth to it. It's the same reason that General Musharraf seems to be in no hurry to hold elections in Pakistan, either. If he let the will of the people decide things today, there's a pretty good chance someone like Usama bin Laden (right) would be President, tomorrow. And what would we do, then?

That's the problem with Democracy, you see: the people get to choose their leaders, but the people are still the people. The sudden appearance of Democracy in their midst will not erase their history, their culture, their mindset, their religion or any other major factors that go into making a particular people who and what they are. It won't make them any more friendly towards the West in general, or America in particular, and it won't guarantee peace and happiness, either.

Add Democracy to Iraq, and what would happen? There, perhaps, we might get something approaching a humane, secular government where human rights would be upheld. You would think that they've lived under the alternative for far, far too long to replace one bastard with another. But there's no guarantee: maybe they'll just replace one strongman with another.

Iran? A large amount of the populace is fed up with the fruits of the Revolution, but they're in no hurry to have another Shah, either. And is their dislike and distrust of America - one of the focal rallying points of the Revolution - going to go away once they have a real choice as to who leads them? Or would we have debates where Presidential candidates all tried to outdo one another on how anti-American they could be?

Those are the two big vergers. Elsewhere in the Middle East, where folks are relatively happy with their lot, the magic granting of Democracy would probably bring about little to no change at all. For example, I have no doubt that were the United Arab Emirates made into a Democracy, Shiekh Zayed would be Governor of Abu Dhabi and the President of the UAE. He is beloved by his people, and with fairly good reason.

I also have no doubt that King Fahd of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia would be President Fahd of the Muslim Republic of Saudi Arabia. There would still be
Sharia law. People would still be required to dress according to strict, Muslim codes of modesty. Adultery would still get the death penalty. And so on, and so forth.

It's their world, it's their culture, so why would the masses vote for anything else? Democracy would, one hopes, grant the apostates, heretics, renegades and reformers the right to form parties and try to change things from the top down or the ground up. But if people really hated the Way Things Were, they wouldn't need Democracy to set things 'right' - they'd grab their swords off the wall and deal with things themselves... wouldn't they?

I can't understand why intelligent, reasonable people with some knowledge of how the world really works cannot see these things. In my more cynical moments, I chalk it up to foolish naivete, not to mention the fact that most people really have no idea of how the world works. (Item: most Americans do not have a passport)

But I like to think that the impulse to give Democracy around for Christmas is based on the notion of sharing the wealth, as it were. We have it, and it's made us happy, so why can't others have it, too? It's not like we actually have to give something away we're just spreading a great idea around the world.

However, I also suspect that some have a more selfish motive at hand. In giving Democracy to the Middle East, perhaps there is a fervent hope that the differences between our regions would be miraculously stamped down into powder. No more weird religious stuff. No more oppressive policies. No more xenophobia, anti-semitism or the like. Just a bunch of folks who dress in native costume only on occasion, speak a different language in addition to English, have interesting food and love tourists like you would not believe. Planet Disney, anyone...?

I would like to see Democracy in the Middle East, but I don't have any Pollyanna-like delusions on the matter. One would hope the planners of our foreign policy don't, either. But it's getting hard to tell, sometimes.