Election observers are specifically tasked with not influencing the result in a preferred direction; though the accusations that they are influencers is often made to deligitimize them and cause them to be seen as anti-democratic.

So the example is, depending on how you look at it, either irrelevant or diametrically opposed to the point you offer it to support.

Observing certainly influences the election if the non-observed state of the election would involve voter intimidation, ballot box stuffing, or any other corrupt practice.

Hence we can distinguish between interventions aimed at subverting the democratic process and interventions based upon reinforcing them.

Whether or not Soros' interventions are enabling democracy or subverting them is a separate debate. My statement is just to show that the premise that 'any' interference is anti-democratic is demonstrably false.