Why is it that since 911 we continually loose our freedoms in return for security. The media only throws fuel on the fire by not reporting the whole truth. I am no conspiracy theorist. My question is simple. Since 911 our freedoms have been encroached upon and we seem to be headed for deeper integration with the U.S. how can this possibly help Canadians?

Paul Heinbecker: One of the casualties of 9/11 is the American reputation for human rights and democracy leadership around the world. By declaring a war on terror, by conflating it with the middle east crisis between the Israelis and the Palestinians, by using draconian measures domestically to arrest and hold people on flimsy evidence and creating Guantanamo, Americans have taken a number of steps that deny or diminish the rights of American citizens and others caught up in the net, such as Maher Arar.

In Canada, we have the minister's certificates by which we hold foreigners without trial, which is profoundly undemocratic.

A few weeks ago I found myself dumbfounded as I couldn't refute my father's simple argument: Non-Western countries need authoritarian rulers to guide them through development--in essence, development is incompatible with democracy. All the political theory that I've absorbed over the years couldn't shelter me from the lack of empirical proof of successful developing democracy. Singapore, Malaysia, (maybe) Indonesia, Taiwan, South Korea and fast rising China all exemplify efficient developing or developed nations that have or had authoritarian leadership. I counter-argued with the Indian example, but in truth India suffers from a deficit of leadership and may take decades before it reaches the economic ascendancy that China ow enjoys. How can I challenge my father's thesis?

Paul Heinbecker: I guess the argument I would make is that non-Western countries are not inferior to Western countries. You could pick examples. like India, Argentina, Turkey, any number of countries where there's been development and democracy. It's true that it has been the case in places like Malaysia. It certainly is a democracy, although it's not as complete a democracy. It raises the question of what democracy is. Some countries, like the Iranians, they have a kind of a democracy.

There are many countries in the world that are in varying stages of democratic development and economic development and in some cases there are places like Korea that were authoritarian before the were democratic but what seems to be important is that the rule of law be inculcated in the society than simple majority elections, but the rule of law is integral to a functioning democracy. In some respects, good governance is the objective, which is not the same thing as simple democratic governance. There are many examples of third-world countries that are developing, or are already developed, such as Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, Turkey, India, I suppose Malaysia.

There's not one model, or only one path to development, but repression and authoritarianism, is clearly the antithesis of democracy and is not leading to economic growth.

Why wasn"t the democratic will of the people of Palestine honoured by the democratic world and why is a coup or coups honoured by the same democratic world. Do we need adjectives to modify Democracy?

Paul Heinbecker: Double standards. The problem It is ironic that the west insisted on elections in the Palestinian territory then did not like the outcome and refused to deal with what the people had freely chosen.

That does not diminish the fact that Hamas has a record of terrorist activities that obviously have discouraged Western countries from accepting them or wishing to deal with them.

There are two answers, one is legal, one is political.

The legal answer is that recognition is not a bestowal of acceptability. Recognition under the law is acknowledging a fact. The question for the law is who has control of the territory and many countries now recognize countries rather than government, rather than recognize the question of whether those who have put themselves in charge have done it in an acceptable manner or not.

Political dimension of that is that there are times when the government that's been elected is too bad, too evil, too dangerous. There are times when governments come to office through coups where their behavior is simply unacceptable so they are not recognized, but there are other cases where countries believe it may be in their best interests to recognize them even if they came into office in a non-democratic fashion.

I BELIEVE THAT IN ORDER TO INSTILL A DEMOCRACY INTO A NATION THAT THE DESIRE HAS TO COME FROM THE BOTTOM UP,FROM THE MASSES OF FOLK,IF YOU WILL.NOT FORCING IT ON THEM FROM THE TOP DOWN BY A FEW POLITICAL ELITE WITH THE HELP OF A FOREIGN COUNTRY.DO YOU AGREE?

Paul Heinbecker: I mostly agree. As someone says, "It's a little like love, it's got to come from the soul."

There are cases where democracy has come from the top down, notably in Asia and particularly in Japan.

Closing thoughts

There seems to be steady progress towards democracy in the word. There are 60 countries considered democratic, and another 60 are developing it. Two-thirds of the world is considered democratic or in the process of democratizing.

Democracy is more than just elections. It requires respect for minority rights, it requires the rule of law, free markets. The UN has done an enormous amount to assist in that process. It has supervised nearly 100 elections around the world and has actively assisted scores of countries as they try to become democracies.