In The Jakarta Post, May 31, Harsh V. Pant asserts that "democracy will not reduce the threat of terrorism." He suggests that America's occupation of Iraq will spur terrorism. This may be true, but it does not substantiate his argument since the invasion of Iraq was never designed to bring democracy.

He also says that democracies are more prone to terrorist attacks than non-democracies. This claim depends on the arbitrary definition of "terrorism", which refers to attacks on people in stable societies, or, to attacks on Americans and their allies, but not to attacks on people in unstable societies, or, to attacks by Americans and their allies.

For example, no one uses the word "terrorism" for the campaign by American-backed rebels against the Nicaraguan government in the 1980s, or for massacres by factions in the recent war in the Democratic Republic of Congo, even though these killed far more civilians than all the attacks by all the terrorist organizations, mentioned in Pant's article, put together.

His claim that "democracies are more tempting targets for terrorists" is not borne out by al-Qaeda-linked attacks in countries as diverse as the USA, Kenya, Spain, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and Indonesia. What is clear is that al-Qaeda developed mainly in Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan, two countries where the U.S. backed Islamic extremists.

It may be tempting to blame democracy for terrorism in Indonesia. Plainly, the fall of Soeharto allowed Jamaah Islamiyah leaders to return to Indonesia. It also led to the struggle to oust president Abdurrahman Wahid and the sectarian conflicts in Ambon and Poso, which allowed Jamaah Islamiyah to grow undisturbed by security forces until they switched targets from Indonesian Christians to foreigners.

But, democracy is not the real cause. Under a democratic government, radical exile groups might never have grown in the first place. The struggle against president Wahid reflected the weak institutional mechanisms bequeathed by Soeharto. The Ambon and Poso conflicts had roots deep in the past. The mentality of security forces, which is more concerned about people writing about terrorists than about the terrorists themselves, is another legacy from the New Order.

More democracy, not more repression, is the only way to move beyond these problems.

JOHN HARGREAVES Jakarta