To: Dayuhan who wrote (108472 ) 7/28/2003 10:36:15 PM From: Hawkmoon Respond to of 281500 I mean reforms aimed at enhancing the three things that I believe define democracy: political accountability, protection of basic rights, and guarantees of basic liberties (including economic liberties). We're definitely in accord on all of the above.Elections are critical, though: they provide an avenue for change, and they create a link of confidence, or at least the potential for such a link, between government and governed. I don't disagree.. it creates a nice illusion of "freedom".. Unless it's merely a case of exchanging one corrupt government for another, as is so often the case. But don't you believe that it's more important to give a country's citizens property rights? The ability to own property, buy and sell it, or to use it as collateral for obtaining loans? And accompany it with some strong regulations preventing exploitation of these small property owners by those with political and economic power. I also think what's MORE important, is the existence of a free and vibrant press and media.. The ability to have investigative reporters digging up dirt on corrupt officials and shining the light of justice upon them.. And finally, most important of all, a professional military that avoids becoming politicized and holds itself subservient no only to the elected leadership, but also the constitution upon which that government is founded.**only under democratic, and authoritarian systems do we find economic property rights generally respected.** I don’t think you’d say that if you had any direct experience of authoritarian regimes. I saw plenty of corruption during my time in Panama... But there exists a certain respect for property rights because businessmen, and/or those who have expropriated property from others, have need to preserve what they have taken from others. Somoza's Nicaragua probably represented a good example of this, where the middle class entrepreneurs/merchants launched a rebellion to overthrow his corrupt and repressive regime. Unfortunately, they did it by riding the back of the Sandinista "Tiger" which eventually ate them. What's required is a legal process that makes it apply to everyone else, and a police force and judiciary willing to enforce it.. But hey.. ain't that the case in every country, including the US? It's ain't cheap to sue in this country.. But at least you have the right to do so if you can come up with the cash. But the bottom line is that I think most people are more interested in economic than political freedom.. The right to choose a new leader is small comfort when what they really want is economic opportunity.. And no politician can deliver that without a legal framework that permits him to "divide and conquer" with the various powerful interests that exists in any country/region. I don't know Steve... We obviously both want the same thing to result in the developing world.. But let's face it... the only way there will be change is when the majority of people in these countries are willing to take the necessary steps required to create a viable economic and political system. Hawk