I certainly agree that the idea of democracy is hard to completely nail down. It takes an informed electorate, which implies a relatively high level of education, and an interest, which requires the notion each individual has some real impact. Those preconditions are fragile, and not easily obtained.

I picked the Vietnam elections because I know something about them, and because it demonstrates several non-democratic factors.

First, as we've found from the aftermath, the Vietnamese wanted unification with a Vietnamese government. After a while over there one wonders why the hell they're fighting so hard, and comes to the conclusion that it's their country. Much as I would have fought if they were over here. (That realization had to be suppressed until after one has fulfilled their obligations.)

Second, the US had the elections cancelled not in the interests of the Vietnamese but in the interest of the US. The Vietnamese were merely pawns. That, from the point of view of the Vietnamese, comes close to the definition of evil as developed by Scott Peck in "The People of the Lie".

The US was willing to have the leaders of the country killed in order to tighten it's grip. The ROKs were about as reliable as the Iraqi Army and police forces trained by the US. No one wanted 'em around.

I think my bottom line is that democracy is not possible in a nation being run by another nation primarily for it's own interests. The will of the who are interested in their own country first must be supressed, by force if necessary.

I don't believe you can impose the values of the US on an ancient society which has evolved to meet it's circumstances by force and have that considered democracy. So that while democracy is a fuzzy concept it does have boundaries, and the US's involvement in Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam was as far away from that as is a dustball from a hollow-point .45 magnum bullet.

Arf