One of the most enticing rationales for invading Iraq was that it could be turned into a model Mideast democracy.

Yet, right now, prospects for anything resembling real democracy in Iraq look bleak, even should Iraqi elections be held in January.

The Bush team’s belief that it could quickly build a secular democracy has been exposed as fantasy. But was this dream ever credible?

I put this question to one of the world’s most experienced practitioners in supporting grassroots democracy efforts. George Soros, the multibillionare financier, has spent billions of his own dollars trying to promote open, democratic societies in troubled countries. So what did he think of the Bush efforts in Iraq?

“Introducing democracy by military means is not doable,” Soros told me. “The effort to promote democracy has been undermined because we lost credibility” in Iraq.

Some may dismiss these comments because Soros is backing Sen. John Kerry. But there is probably no single individual who has had more experience in democracy-building. So what exactly did Bush do wrong, I asked?

“The whole business of building democracy is very tricky if you come in from the outside,” he replied. “We now advocate building democracy in the Middle East. But if (Martin) Luther had been financed by the Ottoman Empire, the reform movement wouldn’t have gotten very far.” In other words, the Protestant reformation in Europe had to well up from below; it could not be imposed by the powerful Muslim empire next door.

For Soros, the case of Russia provides a critical case study.

“You can only build on the people inside,” he said, “and you can do that only at certain moments of historical change. There was a genuine collapse of the old order after the fall of the Soviet Union.” Russians themselves sought reform and wanted American assistance.

In Russia, Soros funded Russian projects that tried to build civil society from the ground up. He helped develop independent media, kept Russian libraries alive when they no longer had money for foreign periodicals, aided human rights groups — the list was endless.

But Russian officials, pushed by the Clinton administration, embraced change that was too drastic. They tried to privatize the Russian economic system overnight so that the communists couldn’t make a comeback. The system couldn’t cope, the economy collapsed, and impoverished Russians came to identify democracy with chaos.

Russia has reverted to autocracy, and most Russians embrace Vladimir Putin, who has muzzled the media and the parliament.

“Today, if you criticize Putin, it strengthens him,” says Soros, “because there is such resentment and xenophobia due to what the collapse of Russia brought.” In Iraq, Soros says, we have yet to see that pivotal moment when political reform is embraced by the people. The U.S. failure to provide security for Iraqis has made the word “democracy” suspect. Iraqis are dubious about government officials appointed by the Americans, and many Iraqis think Americans are out to steal their oil. It still isn’t clear whether scheduled January elections will be regarded as legitimate.

Soros thinks Afghanistan had real potential for political reform, since it had a tradition of representative institutions, such as the loya jirga assembly, which helped legitimize last week’s elections. He fears that lack of sufficient U.S. attention and aid may undermine this progress.

But, in Iraq, some form of democracy can take root only when the public embraces it as its own. So far, most Iraqis have little concept of what democracy means.

Russia stands as a warning to U.S. officials, who harbor illusions that democracy can be imposed in Baghdad. And the Russian case was easy when compared with Iraq.