It said the word "democracy" is constantly heard through White House statements that refers to it as bliss the whole world looks forward to having.
"If democracy was absent in any country under any circumstances, it can't be justified except with oppression," the paper said.
The paper said in spite of the faith in democracy, there was no agreement on how to deal with countries that lack it.
"People in the U.S. disagree with each other on the means to achieve this dream, a dream that for a long time came to people who founded the U.S. in 1776," the paper said.
It said some think the United States should lead the export of democracy, while others think the U.S. should work on promoting its interests only.
"U.S. sides who don't believe in democracy for oppressed peoples, allies with the leaders of those peoples to prove that democracy only burdens and dismisses citizens of a country with a tyranny," it said.
The editorial also referred to a third side, which believes in the "necessity" of forcibly imposing democracy on people that lack it.
"After the events of 9/11, President Bush decided to join the last side when he promised to spread democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq," the paper said.
The paper said the governments in those countries were changed using tanks, weapons and multinational forces.
"Bush had this belief that as long as Iraq and Afghanistan form a threat to the U.S. and international security, governments in those two countries must change and democracy must be imposed by force which, for Bush, was the only way to empty the Middle East of dangers and threats," the paper said.
It said there were three things wrong with this. First, the idea of distributing democracy on any culture, any country, under any circumstances; second, countries that have elections are democratic; and third, the belief of finding one eternal and consistent definition to the word democracy that it is valid at all times.
"The Bush administration was able to push Iraqis to carry on elections, and form a national elected government in a relatively short time, yet we have always to remember that Saddam Hussein had carried out elections in 2002 too and he won it as he was the only candidate," the paper said.
It said carrying out elections doesn't transform it into a democracy unless this "transformation" protects women, minorities and other religious sects if they voted against the candidates.
© 2007 United Press International. All Rights Reserved.
This material may not be reproduced, redistributed, or manipulated in any form.