A recent trip to the Middle East provides a sobering reminder of the uniqueness of our democracy — and the folly of thinking we can impose our system on far-off lands.

During a June visit to Iraq, well-educated Iraqis told me they yearned for another dictator, though not a psychopath like Saddam Hussein.

"We want someone really firm who would implement laws," one young Iraqi journalist named Mohammed said, echoing many comments I heard. Who could blame him for preferring an autocrat to a so-called democracy that can't protect its citizens or provide for their welfare?

Mohammed's plaint should make us appreciate the limits on exporting our model, and re-examine our own democracy at home.

On July 4, Americans should have pondered the uniqueness of the Founding Fathers. The Declaration of Independence draws not only on Christian beliefs in the rights endowed by the creator, and on Greek concepts of self-government. Our luckiest break: The founders were steeped in the British concept of rule of law that had evolved over centuries — the idea that leaders must be subject to the same laws as citizens.

Many of the founders were lawyers; to them, the idea of rule of law was essential; it served as a rallying cry in the independence struggle. They were also exceptional leaders, and, despite their differences, mostly agreed on the core principles of a new system.

Most Americans take this British heritage for granted and don't fully appreciate its value. Think of South America, where a strict patriarchal tradition undercuts democracy to this day. Or Russia, where leaders adhere to "rule by law," meaning laws are used as clubs by those in power.

In much of the world — including the Middle East — rule of law is a term with little meaning. In Iraq, which lived 40 years under a brutal dictator, a new constitution offers little to people beset by criminal gangs, militias and religious fanatics.

Iraq is also the victim of false analogies about the ease of exporting democracy. President Bush compared Iraq to postwar Japan and Germany, wealthy nations, completely defeated in battle, whose new leaders and publics were ready for a change. The president also compared Iraq, wrongly, to central Europe; this region quickly rebounded from communist dictatorships because it had a history of democracy and links to the West.

The most ludicrous comparison, by ex-deputy defense secretary Paul Wolfowitz, compared Iraq to post-liberation France. Wolfowitz believed Iraqi exile leader Ahmad Chalabi could establish an Iraqi democracy as de Gaulle did after World War II.

But the abolition of Iraq's main national institutions — its army, the Baath party, its state factories — left the country without a cohesive framework. Ordinary people fell back on the only available social networks: the mosque, new sectarian political parties and religious militias. Elections only solidified the divide, since people voted for sectarian parties. The educated middle class is fleeing abroad.

None of this says Iraqis don't deserve better than Saddam or the current chaos. Nor should it prevent U.S. aid to genuine Arab democrats, an endangered species badly undercut by our Iraq mistakes.

But the Iraq tragedy should pierce the hubris of those who think the U.S. system can be easily imposed on another country. The Fourth, so recently celebrated, offers the right moment to reflect on what makes our own system work.

Just as the Bush team misjudged our ability to export our system, it has been cavalier toward rule of law at home. Guantanamo; Abu Ghraib; domestic spying without court order; White House efforts to expand executive power and install a radical, activist Supreme Court — all chip away at our system's core values. The White House seems bent on undercutting the checks and balances devised by the founders.

The Islamist terrorist threat — which may continue for years — should not push Americans to abandon the values that set them apart from the non-rule-of-law world. If changes are to be made in our system, they should be made not in secrecy but as part of an open national debate.

Our failures in Iraq have undercut the appeal of democracy in the Middle East and elsewhere. Our failure to adhere to our founders' values undercuts our own system. It does a disservice to the unique leaders whose legacy we honor.

Trudy Rubin is a columnist and editorial-board member for the Philadelphia Inquirer. Reach her at trubin@phillynews.com.