The news shot around the globe: a majority of the world's population now lives under democratic government - 58 percent, according to Freedom House, the documenter of such things.

One writer was inspired to conclude that "those concepts of 18th and 19th century European and American philosophers and statesmen that motivated the common man to cast off his chains: had now been extended "throughout the world."

Another noted that "stable and established democracies rarely go to war with one another," so these findings may prefigure an end to warfare itself - a truly inspiring note upon which to end a century and a millennium. But it would be wise to read the small print before the celebration begins.

Freedom House, itself publishes the apt corrective to the excessive claims made on behalf of its study - its ratings of freedom in the nations of the world. Rather than 119 democracies found by the widely disseminated study, the more important analysis fins only 85 somewhat free countries, with only 44 percent of the world's population. Even that is misleading. There are only 29 countries, about 6 percent of the world population (most of which is the United States), that receive the fully free designation from freedom House. Even the first two categories total less than one-sixth of the world.

Freedom - that is, checks-and-balances on government power, the rule of law, independent institutions that protect individual and property rights and limit government, and laws that respect individual rights - these are the critical factor for the quality of life for real people. "Democracy" by itself covers a multitude of sins and does not necessarily give freedom.

Rather than a straight-line projection from democracy to freedom, the history of most people living under democracy is periods of democracy interlaced with military coups. These can be seen as unexpected deviations from the democratic norm but political scientists tend to see this as a distinct category, called praetorian democracy. Such a state has a certain tendency to utilize elections, which makes them democracies, but whenever a crisis arises the normal redress is for the military to intervene. Usually, the soldiers return to elections but they remain poised when problems re-appear. Most of the South American democracies were clearly in this mold until very recently. Many believe they have a permanently democratized. A realist would remain skeptical.

Venezuela should flash caution. Freedom House, itself, concluded that President Hugo Chavez's new constitution has swept away its separation of posers and rule of law, representing a "serious reversal" of democracy.

Actually, it is not a reversal of "democracy" because Venezuelans voted 71 to 29 percent for its new "Bolivarian Republic." The fact that Mr. Chavez weakened the legislature and judiciary, called those who opposed his changes "squealing pigs," labeled businessmen a "rancid oligarchy," said Catholic Church leaders were "degenerate priests," and appointed a foreign minister Jose Vicente Rangel, a Marxist who admires Fidel Castro - those are the important points predicting future developments.

And, hold the presses, Ecuador just ended its democracy with a military coup. It is the lack of limited and civil government that matters, not whether people simply vote.

The whole idea that democracy is the predominant form of government in the world rests upon a very few nations with very large populations. How they act over time determines how the "success" of democracy is perceived. The great majority of the world's population living under "democracy" in the study is represented by India, Indonesia, Brazil, Russia, Bangladesh and Nigeria all these have very recent histories of authoritarian government. None of them ranks as "free" (except India, in the lowest, very marginally ranking). It would be a rash prognosticator indeed who would predict all would remain democratic by the end of this year nor that any would become free. All will probably continue to shift between democratic and authoritarian and will only give its people limited freedom at best. Freedom's pre-conditions do not exist.

All that is needed for "democracy" is universal suffrage and competitive political parties. Even, then, franchises are often limited informally and many of the nations listed as democracies have only token opposition parties. The study might be most misleading in saying "the majority of the world's Muslims now live under democratically elected governments." In the Islamic world, the more democratic nations tend to be more involved in conflict with their neighbors; the more monarchical tend to be more peaceful and generally better to their citizens. One study enthusiast proclaimed the end of absolute monarchies but, although they all now have paper constitutions, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Jordan and the rest act little differently than the old Sultan. In any case, the findings rests mostly upon Bangladesh, Indonesia and Nigeria. The ruling party in the former arrested most minority party politicians after the recent election, Indonesia has just escaped decades of dictatorial rule (with religious/ethnic riots still in the Moluccas and Aceh), and the Yoruba and Hausa are in the news fighting over who really rules Nigeria.

The problem with "democracy" is that it encourages sloppy thinking. One commentator in the Wall Street Journal, for example, mixed Adam Smith, Thomas Paine, the French Revolution and the American Revolution as part of the same worldwide movement toward democracy. Yet, the philosopher, F.A. Hayek, talked of "two revolution." One, which traced to the French, disparaged tradition and preached ends only - liberty, equality, fraternity - with a state with full power to force those goals.

The other traced to an American revolution that put individuals and private and traditional local institutions first, and only required a limited government that allowed them freedom, if they did not harm others. It was necessary to build government bodies to check and balance each other - divided legislatures, independent courts, presidents with enough power to act when demanded and the states to provide most domestic government - and to allow private and local ones room to grow. If the later democracies followed this lead at least to the extent of dividing power, they could follow the American way. The ones that did so are successful today.

Predictions are hazardous. As Joshua Muravichik notes, the most common prediction for the 20th Century in the 1900 was for the end of warfare. Instead, it was the most bloody century in history, by far. It is safe to say, though, that "democracy" in the simple sense of the study will not end war either. The "democratically" elected government of Nazi Germany did go to war with its democratic neighbors. Democracy in Russia today did not prevent the invasion of Chechnya. The examples are endless.

Considering that more people were killed by their own government in the last century than by war, building freedom is the better remedy, especially the Founders' central mechanisms of checking and balancing power and laws supporting private and local institutions. But these principles are questioned today even in their country of origin, especially by the courts.

There is plenty of work for freedom here rather than hoping some impersonal force of history like democratization will make it all turn out right.

---

Donald Devine, former director Of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, is a columnist and a Washington-based policy consultant and a Vice Chairman for the American Conservative Union.