First Afghanistan, then Ukraine, then Iraq, then Lebanon, and now – Kyrgyzstan. It may be hard to place it on a map or name its capital, Bishkek. But it is hard not to be moved by the images of crowds in the city of Osh yesterday trampling on the picture of President Akayev. Mr. Akayev has ruled since October 28, 1990, when Kyrgyzstan was still a Soviet “republic.” If the democratic revolution there is successful – and we hope it will be – it underscores several points that President Bush and his ideological allies, from Natan Sharansky to these columns, have been making for some time now.

First, that Islam is not incompatible with democracy or freedom. Kyrgyzstan, like Afghanistan and Iraq, is a country with a Muslim majority. But Muslims, it turns out, want to choose their own leaders rather than being subjected to tyranny.

Second, that some international standards of freedom and democracy can be applied universally by credible institutions. Mr. Akayev’s allies in Moscow have been complaining in particular about the role of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, which grew out of the Helsinki accords that, during the Cold War, linked human rights to East-West relations. The OSCE sent an observer mission to the February 27 parliamentary elections in Kyrgyzstan and found that they “fell short” of international standards for democratic elections and were marred by “incidents of vote buying, pressure on voters and multiple voting.” That appears to have spurred the current protests.

Third, that the United Nations, contaminated and corrupted as it is by the dictatorships, is not well positioned to play a leading role in the struggle for democracy and freedom. The best the secretary-general’s spokesman could offer yesterday on Kyrgyzstan was that Kofi Annan was “very concerned” about “the current tensions.” His concern is understandable, because if freedom and democracy breaks out in more places, the newly elected governments in those places might get together and create a world body with a leader who expresses support and joy instead of concern when a dictator is about to be toppled.

Fourth, that freedom and democracy are infectious. They have a way of spreading, like toppling dominos. We saw it in 1989. We’re seeing it again. This is not inevitable, but it is a tendency. When it happens, it is a glorious thing, whether in Kabul or Kiev or Baghdad or Beirut or Bishkek or Osh. Kyrgyzstan borders, among other countries, communist China. So who knows what dictator will next find an image of his face trampled upon by the footsteps of freedom?