On Populist Uprisings

In response to the events in north Africa and the Middle East, I recently wrote this:

"I would agree with the notion that we can't be sure what kind of government these unwashed masses would choose to put in place of the old regime, so caution is warranted. US interests may not be served by what's going on. But for people in our position, who value democracy, isn't this inherently good, even if the consequences may hurt us (the west) down the road?



Don't we, who love freedom, have a duty to support the ending of autocratic governments, regardless of cultural context? Isn't that thing, in and of itself, good? Shouldn't we be sympathetic to those who have been deprived for so long of what we have enjoyed for so long?"

When I wrote this, I really only half believed what I was suggesting. I presupposed that everyone in the conversation (myself included) considered democracy to be inherently good. With that assumption in mind, it naturally followed that democratic actions are inherently good. This was all for the sake of simplicity. However, is it safe to assume that democracy is inherently good?
 
On closer inspection, I would say "probably not". I speak for myself in this matter, but I don't believe that we value democracy because it is purely and absolutely good, in and of itself. It's a pragmatic thing. The government is best which governs best - that is, which rules efficiently and in the best interest of the general welfare. Democracy is certainly not "optimal". For whatever advantages are present, there are disadvantages and risks too. To quote Churchill (I think) democracy is generally the "least worst" option currently known to us. From a practical perspective, a benevolent dictatorship has it all over a democratic system - at least in the short term.
 
Proceeding from this different assumption about democracy, how can we judge these uprisings at this early stage? Iraq is an often cited example of failed nationbuilding, it's clear that the government there is really struggling. If someone were to argue that the people of Iraq would have been better off under Saddam Hussein, such an argument might have merit. Which is worse, the organized violence of a tyrant, or the disorganized violence of a failed state?
 
On the other hand, it doesn't seem right to judge the value of actions solely based on consequences, gathered years or even decades after the fact. The priorities of these people seem to be geared toward greater personal liberty, and they're using the best means available to them to acheive these goals. Isn't that all we can ask?
 
Worthy of consideration at any rate.