[SteveA]

For example, if we wanted to encourage the emergence of a peaceful government in Iraq, would this be more likely to emerge from a government that promoted individual rights and capitalism or a government based upon typical democratic governments utilizing majority rule?

(A federal system with regional diversity might be better in order to let temperments cool.)

I don't know if others have noticed it but Bush has began to drop the idea of spreading freedom around the world. He used to speak of freedom and democracy. Now he simply speaks of democracy and seems less concerned about protected rights and more on majority rule. Protected rights in the U.S. seem to be causing him grief in his policies and this might be why he's taken more with the idea of having a "mandate" from the people that means he doesn't need to remain limited by the Constitution or pay attention to individual rights. It seems as though democracy is inherently based upon political oppression/intimidation and detracts from maintaining peace, or at least doesn't serve keeping the peace much.