"Given that Lee Kuan Yew was quasi-authoritarian, when doing case studies, it is also very important to look at the numbers. For ONE success of an authoritarian rule, of which there are extremely few, how many more examples can you look at that has had similar, if not bette,r success through democracy? Given this fact, I still would bet my last dime on democracy than autocracy. " This is avalid point, and I have no counter point for this except that all the Asian Tigers leaders were Authoritarian at one point or the other and that explains their economic success stories. Some scholars credit Pincohet's rule in which Chile went through economic liberalization and decveloped the institutions necessary for the rule of law, for it's remarkably successful transition to democracy. But of course, these are few isolated incidents and we should not be taking these examples to be "brahma-bakya". There have been examples of democracy and development going together (India and many other countries) and there are places where dictatorship and development going together (Singapore, Malaysia, Taiwan and Korea till the 80s, etc.). Of course, I respect your views, but in politics one has to take side. You have chosen allign yourself with democracy and development side, I have chosen to allign myself with authritarian or strong govt- developmnet side. Once the preconditions necessary to sutain democracy are there because of economic developmnet, then the nation whteher it be Congo or North Korea or Nepal, they will have to ebcome democracies. "Now, a brief note on Wilsonian idealism. " Not only Wilson, ISO, I questioned and challenged hard the concepts of Monroe Doctrine (which can be considered a basis for Wilson's 14 points) as well when I was at an early stages of studying international affairs. Coming to study in the US from a third world country, carrying a jest of rebellious nationalism with me, I challenged hard the basis of US foreign policy, which I saw as neo-imperialism. I still do question US motives overseas -- you might have noticed my stance on Iraq and elsewhere -- and vehemently oppose some of Western policies around the world. However, there is a difference between what some of profound doctrines stand for, and what they are USED as. Therefore, I have come to realize that Monrovian/Wilsonian concepts, as it stands free and pure of US governments' motives, cannot be challenegd. At least in words they are so genuine and they are so powerfuly pertinent, that I would be axing the very chords of ideology that I believe in so dearly -- democracy and the freeedom -- if I began to question their very existence. maybe I am young so I am questioning these. But Wilsonian idealism I see as a way to : i) stop revolutions- With the Communist/socialist movements gaining momentum in many parts of the world then, the US needed to come up with a policy to counter the spread of communism/socialism. Revolutions were seen as having negative eefect on the "US -Open door policy, i.e., market expansionism". And how do you oppose that- You cnnot just tell the people to tolerate their corrupt, ineffecient leaders nor could you tell them to embrace communism.. so idealism. Self determination and democracy. Self determination was self determinationa s long as it did nhot interfare with teh US policies. Even Wilson was confused regarding the very principles he proposed.. also, a point to note will be- even his secretary of state disliked the principles. Not to mention his successors too were bit unsure about how to use those ideals. So they just got sidelined till 1945.. and again, when the world was more polarized at the ebginning of teh Cold War, the idealism found its place in the US foreign policy, because it would serve the purpose of thwarting the revolutions in third world or other countries. [Karl Meyer (sp?) mentions this in his book, The Dust of Empire- The Race for Mastery in Asian Haertland.. and the distinguished American historian, William Appleman Williams gives you a detailed acount of the whole idealism/economics etc in American foreign policy in, The Tragedy of American Diplomacy.].