Sad day in London

[Elcoholic]

That's a good question. In theory Iraq was a democracy. But the most important thing about a democracy is not the electing of your leader but the split between the 3 powers (I think it was the judges, police department and the government). In Iraq this was not the case since no judge could reject a decission made by Saddam.Also not all democracy's are the same. The US and Britain have a 2 party system where for example my country has 5 big parties and a dozen small ones. After an election a couple of parties have to work together to form a majority. There is never one party in complete control which I personally think works better. The downside is that there are always compromises made. And there are lots of differences between the judicial systems which make for some interesting discussions. So not all western democracy's are the same and they have some pretty big differences.

I do think that democracy can work anywhere. I believe the power to elect your leader should be in the hands of the people and combined with a max. term for the leader (like the US president can only stay 2 terms) could work anywhere and is the best system. But it shouldn't be forced upon them since people tend to reject what is forced on them. In the case of Iraq only time will tell since you have all these egocentric factions there based on different religions or ethnicities and they all have very little tolerance for eachother. I really have no idea how this is going to work out. I just hope that it won't take too long till they see that all these attacks don't help them nor the Iraqi people.