Democracy as a means not an end

Adrian Hamilton's on the promotion of Democracy in foreign affairs:

Democracy, like any other political system, is ultimately about power. And for those with power it becomes a means of retaining their position. For authoritarian regimes in particular, with control of the registration and voting procedures, elections are used as a means of asserting their authority not a way of challenging it. It is what is happening in Sudan and in Burma. It's how President Karzai saw it in Afghanistan and how President Mugabe took it in Zimbabwe. Far from being threatened by the vote, they see it as a stick with which to beat back domestic opposition and foreign criticism.
The trouble is that so much of Western pressure on countries to introduce democracy actually aids authoritarian regimes in this approach. Elections are made the condition of approval of aid or diplomatic relations. They are then seized on as a useful gesture by the governments concerned, who see that they can turn them to their own advantage, while other power groups look to them as a means of furthering their own interests.
Of course the outside world tries to ensure fairness with observers and rules. But they are inevitably caught up in the politics of place which they don't usually understand and have little control over. Worse, the desire by the Western world to show progress and open up communication means that they are very reluctant to call a dud election a sham.

I agree with Adrian Hamilton that Democracy is a means, not an end, and that realities on the ground matter, but I disagree with his attempt to make particularities an universality without placing the emphasis on the fact that matters, which is the consent of the governed.