Very good article - thanks very much. It would be ironic if Iran (a country that reputedly hates America and vice versa) moved into democracy more quickly than Iraq. If it could happen it would hopefully send a very strong message to America about trying to export democracy.

In a utopian dream I can see Iran being as close a friend to America and the "west" in 50 years as Japan and Germany are now. We have a lot of work to do to get there but it must have seemed hopeless in 1942 as well.

I believe that democracy will work in Iraq but all things take time and patience. After all, many Iraqis did vote at the elections. It is those "moderate" muslims (to use a Daniel Pipes term) that will see Iraq into a stable future.

America needs to continue to take the initiative in fighting terrorism especially in regards to Saudi Arabia and its funding of terrorist organisations.

I dont agree that America is being niave or arrogant in trying to bring democracy to Iraq or any other country for that matter. America stands for freedom and the shame would be on them and all other democracies that "sit idly by the blood of their neighbours".

We can all dream on, but I say when it comes to Islam 'Watch this space' :)

In all likelihood, more people in the Pentagon have read Marx than have read Fukuyama. It is far easier to bluff your way through a social science course with a secondary acquaintance of Fukuyama than it is to avoid reading - at very minimum - the Communist Manifesto!

Either way, both doctrines can be said to promote a similar ideal: the centrality of the dignified human individual in political life and the necessity that this norm will be realised universally.

On one hand, it seems that neither Fukuyama nor Marx were correct in their claim that history is approching a universal conclusion. The political landscape of human civilisation has never been, nor will it ever be, static.

On the other hand, the centrality of the human individual in political life is already a universal norm. this is evident from the terms used to communicate political conflicts of interest throughout the world.

However, it is not the case that the universality of a norm leads to the globalisation of a particular form of life, say democratic government- even if that norm is central to that concept (as is the case with the dignified individual in democracy).

This is because governments respond to the current reality in ways that are governed and understood by a variety of norms and ideals. The ideal of individual dignity, for example, is but one amongst many embodied in the constitutions and reflected in the practices of western liberal democracies.

You simply cannot explain democracy in terms of a single aspect as the author attempts to here, armed with 'civil society.' That is not to say that this theory is redundant- far from it.

However, we need to bear in mind that the 'civil society' interpretation of democracy presented in this article is normally articulated with the view of establishing how countries might manage democratisation more successfully, i.e., by developing that sphere of life.

Such a theory is hardly classified information- in fact it is exactly the kind of information that democratisers seek- and utilise to their advantage.

To me, it seems unreasonable to make the strong claim that the 'American attempt to impose democracy on Iraq will fail.' At this point in time, there is evidence for a variety of conclusions in Iraq(insofar as any outcome is a 'conclusion'!). But far from showing the impossibility of democracy taking root in Iraq, Averini's argument actually provides part of the blueprint for its construction.

ANNIE !!
Be adventurous.. go out to the deep end.. you have 'commented' on the situation in Iraq, and on the article... ok...
what now ? Is liberal democracy 'wrong' .. 'right'.. and what about marxism ? etc. Are they just human responses to the flow of history ?
Is any more valid than the other ?
What about the ideas of Sartre ? Christ ? Islam ?
How do any of these impact on your claim that its going too far to suggest that the Iraq democratic experiment will fail and that the evidence suggests it may succeed ?

DAVID!!!
I am a democrat, obviously.
Marx's theory of value was a very useful contribution to the social sciences but he was a poor writer and his interpretation of human history was wrong- not that that can be proven; such is the nature of his claim!
As for Fukuyama: I have not read past the introduction of the End of History so I'll refrain from offering my not-so-informed opinion on the matter.
Regarding Sartre; also not a great writer but I like his plays better than his philosophy. Christ? Well, I'm an atheist but I reckon he was probably a well-intentioned individual.
My experience of Islam is very limited (I live in Catholic Ireland) but I do not think it is correct that it or any other world religion is irreconcilable with democracy. As I think Huntington himself pointed out, people used to say the same thing about Catholicism and look how that turned out.