Democracy isn't the answer.

The justification for the war in Iraq has morphed over time. At first it was the dangers of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), then it became a fight against terrorism. And then even terrorism in general proved to be an elusive justification for the war and its mounting casualties. The attacks against U.S. forces in Iraq have continued mainly because the Americans are looked upon as interlopers by the people placing their bombs along roadsides. They are retaliating against foreign meddling in their nation's affairs. They clearly resent the United States imposing our nation's will on them.

So, having gone from WMD threats to terrorism, the justification for the American action in Iraq has become the need to build "democracy." And democracy, according to this administration, will be achieved when people choose their own form of government and their own leaders. But what if the people decide on something harmful to themselves and dangerous to mankind? What if long-standing divisions among the people--such as religious factionalism in Iraq--result in civil war? In other words, what if democracy isn't the answer?

Last October, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice trekked all the way to Afghanistan where she expressed great delight because the nation was "now inspiring the world with its march toward democracy." The cause of her joy? Afghans had conducted an election and selected a president along with an elected parliament. But warlords still control much of the country; a high percentage of the nation's international trade is in heroin; and the reigning Islamic clerics remain determined to execute anyone who abandons the Muslim faith for some other belief. Isn't democracy wonderful!

In his most recent State of the Union address, President Bush gushed about "the dramatic progress of a new democracy" in Iraq. Yes, the Iraqi people voted to choose a new government with a new leader under a new constitution. But, in the absence of a strong government that could control internecine animosities, the Shiites began warring with the Sunnis, and the Kurds remain waiting in the wings to take control when the other two factions exhaust themselves. Also, Shiites and Sunnis each harbor resentment because the United States is looked upon as favoring their adversary. So American military personnel are still getting picked off two, three, or ten at a time. Isn't it a bit absurd to be lauding democracy in Iraq?

Democracy, as America's Founding Fathers well knew, is an invitation to chaos and eventual tyranny. The men who created this nation knew the results of the democracies in the pre-Christian Greek city states, and they were horrified at what democracy had produced. But these same men also studied the success that marked ancient Rome where a written constitution limited the power of government.

The key to success in Rome was recognition of the inherent rights of man and limitation of government to a role that saw it empowered only to protect rights. Did a majority of the people have power to promote its faction? Absolutely not. There has to be restraint on the powerful. History shows that expecting restraint to come from a majority of the people (the essence of democracy) is expecting the impossible.

Nowadays, over in Israel, the Palestinians were given a chance to vote for leaders, and the people chose the terrorists in Hamas. Democracy triumphed!

In Venezuela, the people chose Hugo Chavez, an outright Marxist and a determined enemy of our nation. Using his country's oil wealth, he's hard at work spreading Marxism throughout Latin America. Similarly, the peoples of Brazil, Chile, and elsewhere in South America have voted outright Marxist dictators into office. The future will find them regretting what they have done. Let's hope they will eventually understand that democracy isn't the answer.

At the end of World War II, the leaders of some war-torn nations looked to the United States for guidelines about how to reconstruct their governments. If they went to the right sources, they were urged to build a constitutionally limited government whose powers were directed almost exclusively toward protecting the life, liberty, and property of every citizen. Under such a system, there would be no factions grasping for power, no demagogues appealing for votes, and no sliding into totalitarianism. But if they went to the wrong sources, as many did, they were encouraged to turn to democracy where the voice of the people--no matter what it chooses--is considered the ultimate seat of wisdom.

In 1928, the U.S. government published Training Manual 2000-05 to teach members of the armed forces about citizenship. The manual described democracy as a "government of the masses" that should be rejected. It further stated: "Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate.... Results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy."

Those were the days when many Americans knew what democracy really meant, and when they knew that our nation was founded as a republic. A return to understanding the wonders of a constitutional republic and the horrors of a democracy is long overdue.