Communism and Islamism are about as close as Bach and Tu Pac. The comparisons of what happened in Eastern Europe are meaningless.

Meaningless, only because Communism never controlled the hearts and minds of the people and now that it's defunct, it's hold of them is weak and tenuous. People living under Islam aren't so lucky. Islam completely controls their minds, hearts, bodies and souls and as long as they're told by their holy men that Allah wants them to kill, there's unlikely to any change for the better.

Yes, they've been brainwashed and are lifeless zombies, unlike the free-thinking socialists of the West.

Free elections are no guarantee of democracy...yes, however, Hamas was democratically elected.

They are a guarantee of democracy, just not that the party you like best will win.

"brainwashed and ... lifeless zombies"

Change that one word to "killer" and you've come up with the Iranian mullahs', Hamas', Hezbullah's, binLadin's and all the other Jihadi's definition of the perfect Muslim.

By refusing to consider them you'll lose to them. Just as the Romans lost to their fanatics.

They are a guarantee of democracy, just not that the party you like best will win.

True, but only to a point. Free elections only guarantee a democracy as long as the participants agree to the results. Should a government in power decides it no longer needs or desires elections, and most Tyrants don't, then democracy dies and autocracy reigns.

Wither democracy in Palestine, we shall see. The Palestinians chose Hamas, now should they sour on that choise I don't expect to see Hamas willingly step aside in favour of their enemies.

Yes, they are zombies compared to the socialists of the west ... and that's saying a lot. Do we have any evidence of those living under Islam speaking out against the brutality toward women or in any other way acting independently?

Yes. If you stop having elections you aren't a democracy.

If you keep electing thugs you're not a civilized.

Yes, the Iranians will have to vote Ahmedinejad out to demonstrate they're serious about evolving from illiberal to liberal democracy.

Why on earth would they vote him out?

He's an accident and unpopular with those above and below.

Remind you of anyone?

It is irrelevant that they are democracies or not.
What is relevant is they are enemies.

It is the discipline of democracy that will force them to focus on domestic problems.

joe:

No, he's sui generis. When kings had enough power to set election lists they didn't allow elections. The mullahs do.

OJ - can you allow for the possibility that the mullahs "tolerate" elections to release a little domestic pressure and also to mollify the international community they so desperately want to manipulate? After all, Saddam had to bribe and bluster, and nobody liked him (except perhaps Mugabe). If Khameini were just like his mentor, he would probably already be dead.

Reformers in Iran have been jailed or cowed into submission - just last week, one of the most well-known ones died in prison. Khatami was a sham, but with Ahmadinejad, they apparently have gambled that they don't need to worry about image. They would rather have someone who can inspire the nutjob youth around the world than someone who makes the Europeans tingle all over.

Joe's question stands. The people are irrelevant, and the mullahs have the man they want right out front.

Just a small quibble:

As I recall, the reason why the Bush administration refused to assist the democratically elected Hamas government was not because they were democratically elected, and also not because Bush would have preferred to work with Abbas.

The reason was that before the election, and after, Hamas had declared that it was dedicated to the extinction of Israel, and for some reason (true to its principles and the principles of its constituents, I suppose) found it impossible to change that position.

Now Bush could have said, like so many others (realists all?), something like, "We really would prefer you fellas don't pursue a plan to exterminate Israel, but hey, we can still work with you. What do you want us to do? Where do we sign the check?"

But, strangely enough, he didn't. Guess that makes Bush an enemy of democracy.

Yes, an embrace of Hamas by Israel and the US would have been more sensible. But emotions govern politics.

Thanks Jim, but that's not what I meant. If Ahmenijad stands for reelection he'll win on his own.

That difference is why Saddam couldn't hold elections and Khamenei does. But he miscalculated how deeply he'd alienated the Reformists in the run up to the last one and was unable to elect one.

No, he won't. He hasn't even delivered on the economic and anti-corruption planks that his supporters wanted. Meanwhile, he's given the Reformers reason to vote next time instead of boycotting again.

So, to sum up: he's an accident, he's disappointed his supporters, he's energized his enemies, and there's a war on. Again, does he remind you of anybody?

When are the mullahs up for election?

Andrew- The mullah's speak for Allah. No election necessary. They are the 'elect'.

What war? What enemies?

Yes, that will be when they move from illiberal to liberal democracy, when the mullahs no longer have a veto. Though, if they're wise, they'll retain the current powers of the Guardians in a shah-like authority.

Ah, so embracing those who would destroy you is the current party line?

do you have a little brother?