Freedom House, an independent non-government organisation that supports expanded democratic freedoms around the globe, estimates there are about 90 nations which meet its criteria (a climate of respect for civil liberties, a significant and independent civic life, a broad scope for open political competition and an independent media) for classification as a ''free'' country. That's roughly 47 per cent of the 193 independent polities, which for ''glass half-full'' personality types is a reasonably optimistic picture. But in the view of Freedom House itself, and a number of other scholars and academics, democratic freedoms have, on average, declined over the past three years. The most recent manifestation of this was in Thailand last week, when anti-Government demonstrators succeeded in forcing the removal from office of a democratically elected prime minister.

Asia is a particularly problematic region for the encouragement and advancement of democracy, with a number of countries, including China, Burma, North Korea and Tibet, (which is under Chinese control) assessed as among the most repressive in the world ''the worst of the worst''. Freedom House asserts that of 24 ''core'' Asian countries, only six could be described as free. Of the rest, it classifies nine as ''partly free'' and nine as ''not free''. Given these lopsided figures, Asia would seem to be fertile ground for the renewed promotion of democracy which might explain why there is not one but two multilateral approaches to building good governance and democratic institutions in the region.

One is the Asia Democracy Partnership, an American-inspired initiative to develop an informal coalition of democratic states (initially comprising the US, Australia, South Korea, the Philippines, New Zealand, India, Canada, Japan and Indonesia) to support the promotion of democracy in the Asia-Pacific region. The other, more recent project is the Bali Democracy Forum, an initiative of Indonesia's President, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, which got under way in Denpasar this week. Thirty-three countries were invited to attend the forum, including, of course, Australia. Prime Minister Kevin Rudd was one of only a handful of heads of state to make the trip, having promised Yudhoyono last June that he would attend. The lack of heavy-hitters in Bali suggests that most Asia-Pacific nations give only a low priority to the importance of upholding traditional democratic values. More likely, however, it illustrates the ambivalence many Asians (politicians or otherwise) feel about the necessity or desirability of instituting greater social and democratic freedoms. Certainly the Bali Democracy Forum has more modest ambitions than the ADP something which reflects Indonesian desire to persuade as many countries as possible to attend. Indonesian Foreign Minister Hassan Wirajuda stressed the forum would not promote any single democratic system. ''Instead, we are hoping Asian countries can learn and share experiences about democracy from on another,'' he said. An agreement to stage regular democracy talks at a regional level, and the opening of a new Institute for Peace and Democracy in Bali (to which Australia is to contribute $3 million) are expected to be the immediate outcomes of the forum.

As a core member of the ADP, and a country strongly committed promoting democracy in the region, Australia's participation in the Bali Forum was always a given. Whether Rudd ought to have bothered attending is more problematic. The road to democracy that Indonesia embarked on after the resignation of General Suharto in May 1998 has been a notable Asian success story. One of the spin-offs for Australia was a significantly warmer and more productive bilateral relationship with Indonesia, the benefits of which included a treaty enabling closer cooperation in defence, counterterrorism, law enforcement, maritime security and emergency preparation. So it is understandable that Rudd should want to reciprocate, where possible, by supporting worthwhile Indonesian causes, especially ones initiated by a leader whose knowledge of, and warm regard for, Australia is unique among Indonesian presidents. The two leaders also held bilateral talks yesterday, after which Rudd announced Australia stood be ready to provide Indonesia a financial facility of $1 billion to help tackle the global financial crisis if it is needed.

Motherhood statements from Bali in support of the values and virtues of democracy are well and good, but it is unlikely they will materially advance the democratisation of Asia. Indeed, there are doubts that using aid and development assistance (the traditional means of promoting good governance and the development of democratic institutions) works well in Asia because donors are not sufficiently au fait with the underlying political and bureaucratic dynamics of non-democratic countries. However laudable, the objectives of the Bali Forum and the ADP may prove unrealistic in the short term.