Not sure if I can agree with 'democracy' (which I believe you're using equating to the US style of representation) is a prerequisite for tolerance. The Dutch have had a monarchy that was pretty tolerant on a lot of things for a while (just as an example of it not being required). I'd be Ok with saying that democratically formed governments are more likely to be tolerant because tolerance works toward enhancing the number of votes they can get.

But your second comment is scary indeed. "transplanting our culture/values", especially when it comes to US culture and values, is an offensive thing to a lot of people in the world. The US State department pushes exactly one 'value' (and no 'culture') which is that the people who are governed have the right of electing the government they want. Period. There aren't any constraints put on the kind of government the people pick, be it heavily church influenced, strict representation, constitutional representation, etc.

> The US State department pushes exactly one 'value' (and no 'culture') which is that the people who are governed have the right of electing the government they want.

This is the official policy, but everyone knows it's bullshit. Using post WW2 changes as an example, we quickly forgive countries that Americanize (such as Japan), while we quickly forget allies who veer off on their path (such as Russia). We overthrow democratic governments who oppose us and bring back monarchs who are on our side (such as in Iran), while we prop up oppressive monarchs who support us (such as in Saudi Arabia).

And I recognize the fact that it's offensive to transplant our culture/values, which is why I think it's best to just try to bring those people who already agree with our culture and values to America. Let the extremists kill one another - we just need to get the bystanders out of the way.

The Soviet Union did not 'veer off their path' they continued it until Reagan and their policies ran them out of money. Stalin killed more Soviets than the Germans.