"Never believe anyone who is not cross-examined."
It makes a difference because it's the institutions of liberal democracy, or just liberalism, that define the liberal regime, of which most of the world's developed nations are right now, I'm not sure that there's any real exception.So then it makes no difference what form of government we have because "only God can fix it"! Might as well be fascist or communist or just a straight up dictatorship with a emperor king that rules by fiat.
What is the point of even discussing these issues if this is the depth you're capable of? How boring!
The liberal institutions are guarded jealously in functioning, moral regimes, and their degradation typifies immoral regimes.
Basic agreement is required to preserve liberalism, we have to agree on what constitutes a mala in se crime,1 and that means also we agree on certain absolute rights, because absolute rights are always against mala in se crimes, that would be committed against us, examples include perjury or false testimony against us, and being raped, kidnapped or murdered.
Any regime that doesn't agree with us about what crimes we have rights against, is a dysfunctional and immoral regime, it's the definition of one. And morality is objective, not relative, so we don't just disagree, we are right and they are wrong.
An immoral regime is an illiberal regime. The form of government matters because the definition of a moral regime excludes all but liberalism, or liberal democracy, or in shorthand just democracy. It's important to note that when 'democracy' is used it frequently means liberalism, which as I said above, means the liberal institutions. When we wanted to "spread democracy" it wasn't absolute democracy, but limited, constitutional, liberal democracy.