The gift that keeps on giving

We like to think of ourselves today as free thinkers -- as people with independent minds who use them freely because we have the liberty to do so. Well, we may have the liberty to think, but anyone who can look at these times and say we think independently is only deceiving him or herself.\nOne of the most glaring illustrations of this situation is the perception we have in this country of democracy. We think that because it has worked so well in the United States, it therefore must be the best form of government for everyone everywhere.\nIt might sound like I'm going to vituperate the evils of the Iraq war. Not so. I support the U.S. entry into Iraq. Removing a madman like Saddam from power was a wise move to protect our own safety, as well as a service to humanity in general, not to mention the Iraqis themselves.\nWhat troubles me, though, is that we just sort of marched in and imposed our form of democracy on Iraqis without even bothering to ask. Seeing headlines in the papers like "New Promise of Democracy" (The New York Times) and even the IDS's own "Democracy Under Fire" really makes my blood boil. Why does everyone, especially informed journalists, seem to think democracy is some magical panacea that will work everywhere it goes?\nI'd hate to rain on the baby shower for what President Bush calls "the world's newest democracy," but Iraq has technically been one since its monarchy's violent overthrow in 1958. We've all seen what a disaster the past 50 years has been for democracy in Iraq, so what makes us so confident it will work now? It seems like we are beating our heads against a wall to blindly insist on democracy as the only option that will work in Iraq.\nAnother issue that brings our blind insistence on democracy into the spotlight is the huge stink raised about Vladimir "Boss" Putin's "abridgements" -- let's call them -- of Russia's democratic processes. The U.S. government, ever the concerned parent, issued a report expressing that it was "concerned by ... Putin's tightening grip on power."\nFirst of all, what decree came down from on high granting the United States authority over how other sovereign nations run themselves? Also, should our government really be poking its nose into the issues of other countries when they pose no threat to our own? I think we should make sure our own machine is well-oiled and working before we go taking the wrench to everyone else's.\nShould we also really be that surprised that Russia is not a full democracy? It went from rule by a czar with divine right to a communist revolution that only brought it the even more repressive Stalin, Khrushchev and Brezhnev. Yet even without democracy, Russia has managed to become one of the world's superpowers. I think we should be neither surprised nor upset that Russia is again veering in the direction of autocracy. If it is the will of Russia, so be it.\nDemocracy works well in the United States because we're pretty much a cesspool for the rest of the world. We have no established culture, so everyone must get along with their pre-existing ones. Our democracy manages to make that work. \nWe cannot, however, expect our democracy to work everywhere because everywhere is not like here. Each nation must govern itself based on its cultural and ethical values, and it is not up to us to interfere if there is no threat in that difference. We can work effectively with nations with different political systems and still maintain our own values. It is certainly more diplomatic than failing to see more than one right answer to government.