To posit that democracy "IS sovereignty" is not correct. Democracy includes, to some observable level, sovereignty, but not the other way around. Nazi Germany was a sovereign country, so is North Korea today.
There is the case when a foreign conqueror ruling a country stifles the free expression of the conquered people. There is also the case when a nation's own rulers decide to abolish democracy until a (real or fictional) threat has been seen off (or, more likely, switched one type of vassality for another, depending on the personal interests of the ruling elite). Then, they will relinquish power and reinstate democracy. You bet. ๐คฃ
Anyway, who decides what sovereign, non-sovereign, or 'comme ci comme รงa' is in today's interrelated world? Is it not the people being made aware of the true terms of the problem. The citizen has no less sound judgment than the ruling elite, not because he is more intelligent but because, as J. Maritain wrote, "he is less tempted and has less chance of going astray in the major issues which concern him". (Don't forget, resistance to the Nazis in France came more from ordinary people, than from the elites.)