"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same..."--Ronald Reagan

To wit, adopted son Michael Reagan v. bio-son Ron Reagan jr.

The little brown people are people too--who knew?

And Muslims aren't a race, so they can't be "genetically" anything.

In any case, I think the entire human race has more than a slight atavistic attraction to being ruled by strongmen; at the very least it means not having to sit around worrying about who to vote for. Democracy, freedom, all the rest of it can't be sustained without self-discipline and a never-ending struggle against one's own urges. No one is naturally inclined to take responsibility for their own life.

What Andrea said.

Muslims have been having sham elections for decades, one place and another.

Maybe the only real one was the one in Algeria that was canceled.

And how exactly were they shams?

I suspect that Orrin was indulging in a little of his famous acerbic humor when he wrote the line about Muslims being "genetically indifferent to... democracy."

Perhaps, it was a dig at the isolationists, who keep telling us that the Iraq venture will never work?

Off topic, has everybody read Spengler's latest at the Asia Times?

His predictions:
-- Bush will win the elections
-- He will be sorry that he did
-- He will be remembered as the president who dragged the U.S: into a civilizational world war
-- Although it would be more accurate to say that the war dragged in the U.S.
-- Russia will send a major military contingent into the Sunni triangle, by agreement with the U.S.
-- Turkey and Russia will intensify their struggle for pre-eminence in Central Asia, with Turkey waning and Russia waxing.

What do the commenters here think?

The Turkish ones were certainly shams.

A lot of the others, including in your country, amounted to 'electing the chiefs,' which is what the sham elections in my part of the world amount to.

Orrin's cheerful predictions about the march of democracy are contradicted by the history of events.

If Pakistan, to take an example not quite at random, had real elections, then it ought to still be having them.

I am no very great admirer of Indian democracy, which appears to be slipping away with the passing of its Founders. But, religion aside, India and Pakistan started the perilous transition to democracy dead even.

Pakistan (nor Bangladesh) has not nearly kept up as much as India.

Not really. Pakistan (both wings) was made up of the backward boonies and was far less developed economically and politically than the parts which stayed with India.

Most of the political push for the creation of Pakistan from politicians, intellectuals etc came from the Muslims living in what's now central India.

That being said I really don't see how the problems and failings of the Muslim world are that much different from other Third World countries. Religion simply doesn't have that much impact on day-to-day political life or religious parties would be far more prevalent than they already are instead of acting more like special-interest pressure groups.

You obviously know more about it than me, but in defense of my analysis I'll make two points.

1. When a mindset (call it religion or what you will) is universal, you cannot make a political party out of it.

The classic example is the failure of the antisemitic parties in Vienna. Not because the German voters were not antisemitic but because they all were. There was no percentage in calling attention to it.

Our American example would be George Wallace losing his first run for office and vowing that no candidate would 'out-nigger' him again.

2. On the issue of 'electing the chiefs,' it is striking that the first places in the world where women were elected to the highest office were in South Asia, starting (I think) with Mrs. Bandanarike.

This in an area where women's status is very low.

All were widows or daughters of strong men, and the phenomenon is pervasive: India, Ceylon, Pakistan, Philippines, Indonesia.

It's quite remarkable and, to me, calls into question the reality of elections.

I don't think that the Philippines are having sham elections; Ms Arroyo replaced the unpopular Joseph Estrada, which is, after all, what elections are designed to do - Remove a leader who's lost the support of the masses.

Mexico was having sham elections before Vicente Fox, but it's quite possible that he was a fluke.

tictoc:

Bush will win, and it's unlikely that he'll regret it, whatever happens. Presidents like to face challenges. Clinton was famously disappointed that 9/11 didn't happen on his watch.
I don't think that Russia will commit troops to Iraq. They have enough on their plate with Chechnya, and what's in it for them to face the worst of Iraqi Sunnis, as well ?
I would be gobsmacked if there were to be a "civilizational world war". To the extent that there will be one, it's already happening.
All of the world powers are on the same side, so the other side consists of irrationally angry young men with small arms, hardly world-beaters.

The Philippines had a democratic revolution, Michael. And I agree about sham elections in Mexico. And elsewhere.

Call it caudilloism, electing the chiefs, whatever. Democracy is a hard thing to learn and a hard thing to live with.