In Iran, Lebanon and North Korea, a familiar lesson has played out dramatically in recent days: When freedom reigns, human life has greater importance and security; the opposite prevails under repression.

Why not start with the just-concluded sham election in Iran, a country that once experimented with genuine democratic practices? It is easy to join with the opponents of the declared winner, incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, in expressing disgust, although the result should come as no surprise.

Remember, Ahmadinejad originally gained his position through manipulation and fraud. Clearly, he has not changed; the same applies to the Iranian system. Iran’s religious leadership, which was supposedly committed to a free and fair vote this time around, abdicated its responsibility. All the excitement Iranians felt during the robust give-and-take of the campaign was apparently for naught. In the end, the unwillingness of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader, to do what was right meant more than surveys pointing to a likely victory for challenger Mir Hussein Mousavi.

Curiously, some observers are not overly concerned. “Better to have the hardliner you know (Ahmadinejad) than the reformed hardliner (Mousavi) you know less,” they contend. I disagree. Even if Mousavi was once a hardliner and might have been troublesome in his own way, he would have changed the ugly, disruptive tone that has characterized Ahmadinejad’s rule. I suspect many Iranians know what they should do at this stage — take to the streets. Indeed, Mousavi has urged his supporters to resist a government built on lies and dictatorship.

But there is a larger issue here: Elections should not come down to a choice between a hardliner and a reformed hardliner. Voters deserve a full spectrum of options; the only way to ensure that possibility is to topple the religious order that has stifled Iran for three decades.

On to Lebanon, where people crowded the streets after that country’s recent election for a different and uplifting reason: to celebrate voters’ rejection of extremism. And, in sharp contrast to Iran’s experience, the Lebanese had real choices at the ballot box. You would be hard-pressed to find anyone who deems Beirut’s vote less than free or fair. Of course, the encouraging outcome does not guarantee peace and stability for Lebanon, because Hezbollah, a key force on the losing side, retains both influence and guns. It is significant, however, that the majority opted for the mainstream.

Finally, there is North Korea, where the government simply imposes leaders on its people without a second thought. North Koreans will have no say if current ruler Kim Jong Il’s youngest son, Kim Jong Un, succeeds him, as has been reported. They will have no say if he decides to continue his father’s reckless policies that condemn the population to poverty and hunger. And they will have no say if he leads them to war.

Worst of all, North Koreans cannot rise up. They are as helpless as Laura Ling and Euna Lee, the two American journalists recently sentenced to a dozen years of hard labor in North Korea. The only hope for all of them lies in the international community, which has fortunately moved to stand up to Pyongyang’s excesses with new sanctions. In a desperate response, North Korea has announced an all-out effort to obtain nuclear weapons.

As frightening as that sounds, the international community should not flinch. Kim and his cohorts cannot indefinitely resist the sustained, collective pressure of the world. Nor can others who ignore, deny or restrict freedom.