what do you mean by democracy?  the basic minimal definition put forth by Joseph Shumpeter in the 1940's is that a deomcracy is free elections where anyone can put forth their ideas and run for office.  this definition has been widely accepted by political scientists.  however, hamas's "democracy" does not meet this minimal definition.  Can a woman run for head of state?  How about a christian or a jew.  will everyone be able to put forth their ideas even if they are athiest and undermine Islam?  elections do not equal democracy.  this was the basic flaw in neo-con ideology.  one can however support democracy but not the neo-cons.  I would argue that truely supporting democracy requires one to appose hamas, since they are not for democracy.  every major political theorists has pointed to political culture as an important part of democracy.  ignoring this and asserting that demoracy equals elesctions is simplistic and un-helpfull

The writers of the Constitution were anti-democratic.  They did not want the US to be a democracy because they did not trust the people.  Democracy was called "mobocracy".  But at the same time, they recognized that the people should be the sovereign, and not some king or junta.  So they created a Constitutional Republic.

Bush's democracy infatuation a few years ago was disastrous.  If I could narrow it down to one particular incident, it was Condi Rice twisting Sharon's arm to allow Hamas to run in the PA parliamentary elections.  It makes no sense to assume that a people, having never had institutions of democracy (like an independent judiciary, free press, an education system worthy of the name) would elect responsible leaders.  Instead, 'mobocracy' has brought Hamas into power.  Groups like Hamas and Hezbollah are democratically competitive because they are pragmatic, not liberal-minded.  They create the misery and despair in which their ideology thrives.

American policy should be to ensure that repressive regimes like that in Egypt first strengthen institutions of democracy before jeopardizing what little moderation exists by having a popularity contest with the Muslim Brothers.  Arguing the ins and outs of how to go about doing that is academic.

I strongly disagree with Ali for saying that Islamists have co-opted democracy and thus directly challenged everything the West stands for.  In Hamas's "democratic" Palestine it will be one man, one vote, one time.

To anon 9:08- Can a woman, Christian or Jew run for head of state under Hamas? Well, Nuda Haeem (a woman, for the Arabic name-challenged) won a PA parliament seat on a platform of ending such retrograde barbarities as honor killings, and opposing forced marriages, the unequal access to education provided to women and gender-unequal pay. Her party? Hamas. Jamila Shanti, a philosophy professor, also ran on a strong women's rights platform. Again, Hamas. Janette Khouri, a Christian Marxist, was elected mayor of Ramallah in large part due to the support of Hamas. As far as I know, no Jews have yet announced their candidacies for PA office. Anyway, before you start picking on Hamas, you should clean your own house, where a 28 yr old born in Paris would be ineligible to run for president. Such xenophobia! Such ageism! To Mahler- Well done on your hard work. Your Rudyard Kipling impression gets better with each post. Ismail  

Head of state is not a seat in parlament.  The various Muslim Brotherhood scholars that Hamas looks to for guidence permit a woman to run for parlament but not the head of a muslim state.  see qaradawi's "the status of women in Islam"

Zakaria lays out this problem well in his "Future of Freedom."  Where the neocons got things wrong is an almost messianic belief in electoral democracy.
Without the other components of liberal democracy - separation of powers (especially independent judiciary and rule of law) and civil rights (freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc.) - the result is a unstable regime that is (1) likely to devolve into autocracy and/or (2) likely to engage in violence with its neighbors.

Zakaria is right that pushing for liberalization in the Islamic world should take precedence over pushing for electoral shock therapy.  The recent Pew study on this issue shows that Egyptians and Pakistanis, for example, show very strong support for increased judicial independence.   

While there may be space for political parties that promote "Islamic" values but accept the fundamental limitations of liberal democracy (e.g. the ruling Turkish party), Islamism is incompatible with precepts of liberal democracy, and pushing for elections in countries where the Islamists are the only alternative to autocratic regimes is a disastrously bad idea.  The best case scenario is something akin to Iran, where it a generation of Islamist rule has led to an opposition, but one too weak to establish genuine democracy.

Just once I'd like you to be able to argue with what I'm saying rather than make infantile personal attacks.  Is that too much to ask?

In any discussion on the role of women under Islamic rule, you will most certainly lose.

Mahler- Infantile? Gee, no potty-mouthing, no chest-beating, a literary reference which assumed a modest familiarity with the history of colonialist racism on the part of my readers-I don't get the "infantile" part. I could see "pithy", or "unwelcome", but "infantile"?  But I'm more than happy to oblige if it's a substantive critique you'd prefer. 1. "Bush's democracy infatuation"? As the most recent point man for US hegemony and the current cheerleader for the protection of capital, I fundamentally disagree with the notion that Bush has any interest whatsoever in democracy, construed as an absolute good. He has promoted efforts around the globe to subvert movements towards popular sovereignty; witness his unwavering support for the most retrograde tendencies in Israel, for example. 2. Your unembarrassed use of such phrases as, "...twisting Sharon's arm to allow Hamas to run..." is sadly revealing of your extreme ideological list towards anti-democratic mischief on the part Israel. How is it that Sharon should enjoy the tiniest peep of a say over the people his country has dominated for 40 years without allowing them a particle of representation?  Oh, yeah, I forgot...shiny white Ashkenazim trump those wife-stoning, Jew-hating, liberty-fearing wogs by default (see Rudyard Kipling). 3. Regarding people without a history of democratic traditions electing responsible leaders, do you imagine that these traditions spring full-blown from the people and proceed in a regular and increasingly progressive fashion? Like most of human achievement, political progress occurs in a messy, saltatory fashion. In much the same way that one correctly applauds the achievements of a beginning piano student rather than pointing out the degree to which she doesn't resemble Horowitz, I prefer to focus on the fact that the elections in the OT have been fair, without a hint of scandal (unlike those in, say, Florida), that more progressive policies have been emerging in the campaigns of local Hamas politicians as noted in my post above, etc.  4. Regarding your analysis of Hamas' and Hezbollah's competitiveness, the assertion that they "...create the misery in which their ideology thrives..." would require believing that the numerous Christian and non-extreme Muslims who think they are supporting the fact that these groups have effectively challenged Israel's worst excesses are too stupid to see they're mistaken (see Rudyard Kipling). The fact is that Israel has had its boot on the necks of the Palestinians for 40 years. Arafat, and now Abbas, have basically been concerned with whether or not their oppressors found the footwear sufficiently comfortable. For many Palestinians, this is good reason to support their rivals. 5. "American policy should be to ensure that repressive regimes like that in Egypt first strengthen institutions of democracy before jeopardizing what little moderation exists by having a popularity contest with the Muslim Brothers."  As far as I can tell, this bit of hocus-pocus translates to, "Don't let the ragheads vote until they vote as we'd like." Your assumption seems to be that no people properly schooled in the ways of democracy could conceivably vote in a fashion you'd disfavor; if they did, back to the re-education facility with them.

Of course, as I said earlier, there's no reason whatsoever to believe that the US has the tiniest particle of interest in "strengthening the institutions of democracy" in Egypt. Why do you suppose we've consistently backed the autocratic thugs who've ruled that land?

6. Your parting shot about Hamas disenfranchising the population once it gained power is also revelatory of your ideological encumbrances. How fascinating that apologists for Israel are able to rationalize the actual and horrific depredations that land performs as we speak while cautioning us about the potential for Arab mischief which dominates their fevered imaginings. This double-header of denial and projection is of far greater clinical than political interest, so  I will say no more about it here.  

Forgot to sign the above. That was me. Have to register one of these days. Ismail

President Bashar Assad was personally involved in Damascus’ nuclear deal with Pyongyang. Documentary proofs of this, obtained from the presidential bureau and signed by Assad in person, are now in the hands of the US and Israeli intelligence services, DEBKAfile’s intelligence sources report. In one, Assad hands down a specific order in his own handwriting that North Korea not be charged for Syrian goods, including an annual shipment of 100,000 tons of Durham wheat for five years worth a total of $120 million. This is the equivalent of the value of the reactor for producing plutonium up to its most radioactive stage, which North Korea promised Syria.

A high-ranking Western intelligence source speaking to DEBKAfile described the evidence against Assad in US and Israeli hands as solid and much closer to a smoking gun than the West has turned up against Iran’s nuclear program.

The following sequence of events unfolds from the garnered documents:

Damascus and Pyongyang settled between them that the nuclear transaction would be masked as a joint venture to build a cement factory in northern Syria; meanwhile, North Korea would sell Syria cement for its development projects.

According to DEBKAfile’s sources, North Korean freighters, which began putting in at Syria’s Latakia and Tartus ports in January 2007, unloaded cargoes of cement in which nuclear reactor components and materials were concealed.

The North Korean traffic at these ports and the Durham wheat transaction attracted the attention of US and Israeli secret services.

During the next eight months – up until the Israeli attack on Syria’s North Korean installation - wheat prices shot up on international markets. Indeed the price of Durham wheat doubled. Had this been a normal commercial transaction, Syria would have claimed additional North Korean goods in compensation. In fact, when import-export officials in Damascus, who knew nothing of the nuclear reactor tradeoff, pointed Assad’s office to the price fluctuations on the wheat market, they were told that the contracts signed by the president in person must go through without changes.

When later, the Syrian wheat crop fell short of expectations, Syrian officials were again told to fill the North Korean orders in full.

On Sept. 3, the North Korean “cement ship” Al Hamed docked at Tartus. The freight it unloaded was trucked directly to the “cement factory” at Al Tibnah in the Syrian Desert, east of the Euphrates River. The Israeli attack took place three days later.

Last Tuesday, Oct. 23, the Syrian ambassador to Washington Imad Mustapha was invited to address the prestigious Institute on Religion and Public Policy. In answer to a question, he acknowledged, “Syria gives North Korea wheat, oil and other products.”

He declined to disclose what Syria got in return. When pressed on this point, Mustapha said in exasperation: “Stuff. We get stuff.”

Thursday, Oct. 25, a number of leading American media simultaneously ran satellite images of a nuclear installation standing at Al Tibnah in August 2007 and the same site in the second half of September, after it had been cleared of the debris left by the Israeli attack.

This time, Damascus found nothing to say – although Syrian officials had commented on former leaks related to the episode. DEBKAfile’s Syrian sources report that this and other symptoms indicate that Assad finds himself in a tight corner. He is at a loss to explain to the Syrian public and, worse, to most of his colleagues in the political and military leadership who were kept ignorant of the nuclear transaction with North Korea, how he came to entangle the country in this ill-fated adventure.

In the view of DEBKAfile’s Western intelligence source, the Syrian president’s internal and international plight is more acute than that of the Iranian regime or Saddam Hussein in the days leading up to the 2003 US invasion. No incontrovertible proof has so far been shown to demonstrate that Iran has attained the capacity to produce nuclear or radioactive weapons, any more than the Iraqi ruler was positively shown to have weapons of mass destruction. Assad’s case is more unfortunate; it is now supported by solid evidence in American and Israeli hands