In justification of his complaint to the BBC about what he claimed was its biased coverage of the recent 'buy-elections' in Machap and Ijok, Malaysia's information minister made, for a change, a statement I entirely agree with: that democracy here is "not the same" as that in the UK.

But Zainuddin Maidin didn't go on to define the difference, so I set out to examine precisely what kind and degree of democracy Malaysia actually enjoys or aspires to.

Because democracy, like any other species living species of organism or organisation, is continually in a process of change. And in some places democracy has faced the challenge of adapting to formerly alien environments, with predictably mixed results.

Arriving in war-ravaged Japan 60 years ago, in Taiwan shortly afterwards, in South Korea in the 1950s, and today apparently thriving; adopted in post-Soviet Russia much more recently, forced on Iraq more recently still, and so far barely surviving.

In many countries to which democracy has migrated, or been imported by conquerors or colonizers and either imposed on or embraced by their subjects, it's remained pretty much in its pure-bred state.

Democracy as practiced in India, Australia and New Zealand, for example, remains unmistakably reminiscent of its British ancestry. And Canada's highly independent, liberty-loving breed of democracy is still clearly the result of a cross between its British and French progenitors.