"…democracy is, properly speaking, necessarily a despotism, because it establishes an executive power in which 'all' decide for or even against one who does not agree; that is, 'all,' who are not quite all, decide."All who are not quite all are merely a majority who has the power to restrict the freedom of the minority. The ideal solution to this quandary, of course, is a constitutional democracy, similar to that in which we live today. This is not democracy in the "direct" sense that Kant knew but a representative democracy of course.
But even here the individual liberty or freedom of the minority is restricted by the majority. Think for example of the laws against drugs, gay marriage, gun control, four letter words on television, etc. So the spread of democracy does not necessarily mean the spread of freedom as President Bush found out when Hamas was democratically elected in Palestine. And in a direct democracy, the kind which Kant referred to, individual liberty is in danger unless protections are in place for the individual. As he says, democracy is just another form of despotism unless the rights of the individual are enshrined and even paramount.