I published a blog entry a few weeks ago about the threat of an "Illiberal Democracy" in the Middle East as a result of our missionizing zeal for elections.  The core issue was whether there are prerequisite social structures and interaction patterns -- which we take for granted in the West -- necessary for Democracy to flourish.   If so, do these structures exist in a meaningful way in societies grappling with widespread Islamic Fundamentalism.   If not, then our push for free elections in these regions, risks merely becoming a cargo cult in lieu of an underlying Liberal Society.

Two of the core, pre-req social structures are pluralism -- tolerance of differences within a given political sphere and civil society -- the recognition that multiple, overlapping spheres not only exist but that power is distributed & that given individuals have different roles across these spheres. 

Our pluralism, is most overtly enshrined in Checks & Balances between the Judiciary, Executive, and Legislative branches.   However, other forms of pluralism are found in Federalism, the multi-party system, and even the rich fabric of non-governmental organizations such as non-profits.

Civil society, however, is a little harder to crisply articulate as it applies to the Middle East situation.  For example, we view the Federal Government and the PTA are simply different spheres rather than intrinsically subordinate ones.  Although George Bush may lead the Exec branch of government, he is not inherently entitled to lead his child's PTA.   And it isn't a "loss of face" for him & Laura to be in a subservient role at their child's PTA meeting.   By contrast, Mullah Omar, by virtue of leading Afghanistan, would be logically viewed as the head of his child's PTA (or the PTA head would "report" to Mullah Omar;   ...assuming a PTA even existed in Taliban Afghanistan  ;-).  

A type of totalitarianism is the logical result of not recognizing these spheres and, in turn, totalitarian regimes are forced to stamp out these spheres out of self-preservation.

A blog entry yesterday extensively quoted an article by an objectivist philosopher about the heart of modernity and the assertion that the tenets of modernity weren't Western but were rather Universal.  A core tenet of this modernity is freedom on inquiry -- the right/ability to use the tools of science by the individual to independently seek truths for himself. 

The counter tenet to freedom on inquiry is the doctrine of Revelation -- that the Truth in entirety is inscribed in a document (the Bible or the Koran).   Unforeseen observations, in this view, actually represent a failure by mankind to adequately dissect & interpret the previously Revealed Truth.

There is a very intimate relationship between social recognition of the process of inquiry in the realms of science and technology and social recognition of pluralism / civil society within Democracy.   Pluralism / civil society are, in actuality, a distributed form of inquiry into the rules of governance & human affairs.

A society that doesn't fully internalize the notion that Truth is discovered through distributed inquiry vs. revealed through Cannon also views the chaos of democracy not just as inefficient but, rather, as something outright dangerous. 

The dynamic understanding of Truth in human affairs enshrined in our secular democracy is actually viewed as more dangerous by Islamo-fundamentalists than the West's previously held, Biblically revealed notion of Truth.