If there was a lunatic holding a house full of people hostage would it be "imposing upon the people of the house" to go in and arrest the lunatic and free the people there?
Just because a non-democratic government doesn't want a democracy does NOT mean the people living in the country don't.
Since dictators rarely allow their people to honestly voice their opinion on whether they like the dictatorship or want a democracy the opinions of the people can be hard to gauge. Unless they hold a free and fair (no intimidation, secret ballot, people are free to publicly debate which choice is better without fear of reprisal) election to decide between the status quo and a democracy then you can NOT say the people of the country have freely decided not to have a democracy.
Furthermore democracy itself is just (in general) the system most likely to secure freedom and human rights. If a democracy is conducting genocide because the majority voted for it, then it is still tyrannical and should be stopped. If a dictatorship generally supports human rights including free speech (possibly imposing limitations as needed against hate groups and religious fanatics, but allowing general, nonaggressive criticism of its own policies) but can't allow democracy because it knows the people will vote for tyrannical policies then the US should support it, but the dictatorship should be taking positive steps towards readying its population for democracy through education. In a way every democracy does this. The US for example has a Supreme Court that sometimes overrules the will of the people. Some countries may need stronger checks against the tyranny of the majority than others.
It is not realistic to overthrow every tyranny there is in the world. There are too many. Triage is necessary. Regimes committing genocide should be given first priority to stop.
Democracy is the most popular government system for first world countries. This is because it communicates the peoples needs to those in charge of the government. While a country may not feel ready to be part off he first world, if democracy is pushed upon them they will be able to rise to the next level.
The problem with democracy is that it lets everyone have a say in the matter. And that includes corporations or elected officials bought off by same. So I think that when democracy becomes available to a region it should first be forcibly installed. After a period of acclimation, people will accept it and realize they are in charge.
Democracy is all about freedom of choice. It gives people the right to have an active say in decisions that affect their lives. They are aloud to be free to participate in the democratic process, to whatever degree they choose. To force democracy on someone goes against everything that democracy stands for.
I believe democracy should be freely decided upon by a people and not forced upon them. This is why I question the United States in setting up democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan. There are many different forms of government and democracy is just one of them. I would have to say the model doesn't always work, so why are we spreading it?
No, democracy should not be imposed upon a people, because it needs to be their choice in order for it to work. Democracy is not necessarily the best governing system. Someone could use democracy to implement a mob rule or mentality. The Rhinos are wrong to assume that people will embrace democracy if give the chance.