Madam, - Darius Bartlett (January 18th) raises an enormously important question. The old world, with its financial power through various means, has been attempting to "democratise" vast areas of the globe for decades. Yet are we seeing any real increase in stability as a result of this strident effort?
Democracy is in fact a relatively new concept even in Europe. Let us remember that half the population of most democratic countries got the vote only after the first World War. But more importantly, it seems to me (and I haven't anything beyond personal opinion to back this up), that for democracy to work as a system you need two vital conditions.
The first is an educated, informed and relatively well-off middle class. This forms a stable core upon which democracy can be based. And the second - what many European countries in particular have - is a weary recognition that totalitarianism and many of the usually inevitable consequences that go with it, including internal strife and external aggression, lead only towards greater misery for the populace.
Democracy does not end up being a battle between two violently opposing schools of thought. In fact most successful democracies (our own included) for the most part offer a choice between two slightly different versions of more or less the same set of values. So for Europe, democracy works. But what of the rest of the globe? As Mr Bartlett points out, many countries' attempts to impose democracy have resulted in failure, farce, or tragedy. Perhaps for these states, some form of totalitarianism is (regrettably) more appropriate in order to provide stability, as one or perhaps both of the conditions I mentioned are absent.
In such circumstances, surely we should allow democracy to flower naturally, with subtle support where appropriate, rather than forcing it on unwilling people who crave peace and relative prosperity in the short term rather more than the right to vote. - Yours, etc,
KEVIN PRENDERGAST, Templeogue Lodge, Dublin 6W.