The Rise of Illiberal Democracy

The question posed by Fareed Zakaria's "The Rise of Illiberal Democracy" is a striking one. What, exactly, is a nation supposed to do when opposed by an illiberal democracy. Does any nation, particularly the United States, have a right to invade/depose a sovereign, democratically elected government in the name of preserving liberal democracy?

This is a question I have long wrestled with, and there is obviously no easy answer. On one hand, I think that nations, particularly, the US, have an obligation to intervene when situations of genocide arise. For example, I think the United States should have intervened militarily in Sudan, just as they should have in Rowanda years ago. Yet, looking at the situation in Iraq, how different was it? Granted, Saddam Hussein was not a democratically elected leader, yet I was and remain staunchly against the invasion, and logically that doesn't make sense. Outside of the lies told by the US government, in order for my logic and morals to be consistent, I should support the invasion of Iraq...but I don't. Confused? So am I.

Does a nation have the right to intervene in America if our government shows signs of illiberal democracy? I think the answer is no--I can vote out my representatives every election as I please...unless the actions of our nation directly effect the security and well-being of another, I don't think another nation has the right to interfere with the goings-on of the US. Does that apply the other way around? Should it? Again, something else for me and you to ponder...