Brian Katulis, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, appears to believe that democracy can exist without elections. While Brian is one of the more serious scholars at his think-tank, I don’t know what he’s talking about.

I’ve written a great deal about elections — and have often criticized the simplism with which the Bush administration and United Nations approached elections in Iraq, for example, in this 2004 Washington Post piece and in this 2006 USA Today piece. If only experts like Brian would have stepped up at the time and made clear how party slates and closed lists would exacerbate ethnic and sectarian tension; to do so, though, would have meant going against the United Nations, something Center for American Progress scholars are not allowed to do.

In addition, I co-organized this conference at AEI highlighting the importance of understanding systems rather than simply holding elections willy-nilly. Systems of elections are important. The end of the closed list is a major step forward. But, as my article in yesterday’s NRO suggests, the new attitude of compromise among politicians and demands for accountability among Iraq’s people is advancing democracy. Mr. Katulis missed this; perhaps he does not read the articles about which he Tweets.

While I’ve always maintained that democracy is about more than elections, I will open a challenge to Mr. Katulis. Perhaps he will explain how democracy can exist without an opportunity for people both to select and, at regular times, oust their government peacefully? Perhaps he will explain why the Obama administration should not be more proactive to ensure that the Iraqi elections go smoothly and are not marred by fraud? I hope Mr. Katulis is not taking his animus toward the Bush administration out upon the Iraqi people.