At the end of World War II in 1945, there were roughly 20 democracies in the world.  Today there are around 120.  There can be no doubt that democracy has been spreading and hopefully the trend will continue.

America has the right idea when it strives to bring democracy to the Middle East with the rationale being that free and fair elections and public participation with accountable leaders will make the region less likely to raise radical societies.  However, the way the U.S. has gone about defining and spreading democracy leaves much to be desired.

Hamas's election victory over Fatah is one example of Washington failing to balance our values with our interests. In fact, it is hard to imagine the scenario where Hamas will be ousted from Gaza.  Of the myriad of reasons that we are nowhere close to seeing a Palestinian-Israeli peace, the fact that a terrorist group runs Gaza and is pledged to Israel's destruction renders even the Powerball odds of a peace deal impossible.  Why even buy the ticket?

We must do away with our current definition of democracy where it simply means free and fair elections.  It is but one component of a democracy.  Without a civil society, state institutions, a strong middle class, concepts of individual liberty, respect for the rule of law, an independent judiciary and other components that have made it a success in the Western world,  democracy in the Middle East will remain a long way off.  

These preconditions do not exist in the Middle East and where they are lacking, radicals win and ensure there is only one free election with no democracy.  There are no second elections because the radicals who win see to it that the first free election is also the last.  It is one person; one vote; one time.

The U.S. pressed for elections in the Palestinian Authority without demanding that Hamas disarm.  This was a tragic mistake.  In the 1990s, Hizballah in Lebanon began to realize that not only could they shape events with their guns and bombs, but they could also do it with votes inside of parliament.  They decided to run in the elections and have been making gains ever since.  All the while, they have kept their guns and are currently far stronger than the Lebanese army.

U.S. policy should insist that groups who wish to run in elections must choose between bullets or ballots at a bare minimum.

It has taken the Bush administration too long to realize that American-style democracy cannot be exported to the Middle East.  America's brand identity has taken a hit in the Middle East and a package of democracy stamped with "Made in the USA" will send masses running.  It must be planted locally, watered regionally, and nurtured internationally. 

Middle East democracy should be built upon existing institutions and meet the above preconditions otherwise elections merely shuffle the leadership deck without establishing durable democratic behavior. That is why elections should come at the end of the process; not at the beginning.

It is too early to tell whether the democracy strategy in Iraq will endure for the long-run.  Much depends on Iran and Syria - which is to say: depend on the undependable.  Nevertheless, the U.S. has dropped the ball in the one place local democracy was growing while focusing attention on solving the currently unsolvable.

It is amazing how the end of American presidential terms prompts those in charge to open the "Legacy Box."  Inside they find many challenges and conflicts that if selected and solved will cement for them a place among the accomplished rightly-guided presidents for generations to come.  Yet, frequently presidential hands grab the Palestinian-Israeli conflict card from the Legacy Box and set out to climb the highest mountain peak of all.

The push for a Palestinian-Israeli peace by the end of Bush's term is a noble cause because the world previously witnessed a peace process and saw identifiable parameters to end the conflict in the most fascinating place on earth: the center of the three monotheistic religions.  The problem is that the parties to the conflict are less ready now than they were at Camp David in 2000 - and they were far from ready then.  Simply put: this goal is unattainable right now.

Israel and the Palestinian Authority have seen Secretary of State Rice come and go like a yo-yo for peace talks recently.  The U.S. is too focused on a magic breakthrough that will prove elusive.  All the while, the president took his eye off the ball in the one place that the U.S. could make a positive difference in terms of Middle Eastern democracy: Lebanon.

After Rafiq al-Hariri's assassination in Lebanon by Syria's hand, the March 14 coalition was formed to rid the country of Syria and water the seeds of democracy.  This was a tremendous achievement and it united the U.S. and France (if you live long enough anything can happen).  Nevertheless when Hizballah attacked them in May, the U.S. did nothing but send a navy ship towards Lebanon's coast.  America was caught sleeping again.

No matter how one would like to spin the Doha agreement, it is a victory for Hizballah.  America helped teach the Lebanese an unfortunate lesson: Iran and Syria will be more durable partners in all areas than the West will be. The world stood silent as what was left of the Cedar Revolution burned.

Promoting democracy, or more specifically, liberalization should remain a U.S. foreign policy objective.  A fundamental source of anger in the Middle East is the political isolation of most the population.  They feel powerless to affect change and imposed upon by their regimes.  These regimes control most of the wealth while the younger population is demographically booming with very few prospects. 

Many Middle East leaders do not understand how to build economic wealth that can support a middle class and provide opportunities to the ever-increasing younger population.  For example: Syria's leader Hafiz al-Asad used to brag to the U.S. peace team in the 1990s that Syria had the highest percentage of taxi drivers with college degrees.  This reflected his level of understanding the economics of his state. 

It is in America's interest to promote the liberalization of Middle Eastern societies in order to remove the social elements that lead to the radicalization of the populations. U.S. policy should focus on helping those that we can first.  We should strengthen moderates, help build democratic institutions, and encourage reform. 

Spreading democracy or liberalization is a noble cause.  If we match our objectives with our tactics, perhaps we wouldn't fail at exporting democracy.