The simple definition is: The political orientation of those who favor government by the people or by their elected representatives or a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them.

Keeping that definition in mind, I am ever curious why the U.S. government – claiming to be representative of democracy – continually denies the sovereignty of Latin American States, and their legally elected presidents as valid leaders.

Of course, the question can be addressed regarding a number of other countries, but Latin America is my focus.

Nothing about the definition of democracy states that the government chosen by the people of any country should or must conform to the opinions of any other government.

That's a thought worth thinking about.

I intensely dislike a situation where dogs are butchered and sold in the meat market, or where one is not allowed to drive a vehicle on Sunday, etc. However, if a country where that is the case has chosen its government by voice of the people, I have no right to deny it. I simply have the option of avoiding that country.

In November, 2006, the Nicaraguan people finally said 'we've had enough of Washington's bullying' and voted the way they wanted to vote instead of the way they were expected to vote.

They acted despite unveiled threats from the U.S. government that if they voted for an FSLN leadership, they would be subject to embargos, withdrawal of aide, and a promised return to the 1980's. That promise constituted a threat to renew the terrorist war that the U.S. supported against the legally elected government of Nicaragua, a war that constituted attacks only on civilian targets. The U.S. Secretary of State went so far as to request that the HLS be prepared to stop legal Nicaraguan residents of the U.S. from sending money home to support families who are living on less than $1 a day.

Why did the Nicaraguan populace go against the tide? In 1979, 50,000 Nica peasants paid their lives in a revolution to oust a dictator. They wanted a democracy and an opportunity for all citizens to have equal rights.

In 1984, Nicaragua held the first election in its history where every citizen of age had a right to vote. They chose the FSLN as their governmental leadership. Until 1990, they paid a high price for that democratic choice at the hands of terrorists bought and paid for by the U.S. government.

In 1990, they finally said 'uncle' and voted the way Washington wanted. For the next 16 years, the people of Nicaragua witnessed a return to the corruption and bad governments of 200 years, and the poor of Nicaragua saw the opportunities bought with 50,000 lives taken away again.

In March 1990, the FSLN handed over the reins of government to the newly elected, the first time in the history of Nicaragua that government changed control without some one being shot. They proved that democracy is possible in Latin America. No one in Washington noticed.

When Daniel Ortega was elected president of Nicaragua in November, 2006, the U.S. Secretary of State made a statement that the U.S. government would wait and see if he practiced democracy and if so, they would allow his presidency.

Someone needs to define democracy for Ms. Rice.