Democracy is Unstable

From Aristotle, "Democracy arises out of the notion that those who are equal in any respect are  equal in all respects, because men are equally free they claim to be absolutely equal."

Sounds terrific.  Yet, democracy is unstable as an institution.Why so?  There are a number of alliances that make it so and may lead to our collapse.  In a democracy, citizens are totally free to select their views, their philosophies, and their actions.  Equal in all respects?  This is fine for a responsible and cognizant society, one that is aware of its responsibilities and duties.  It is unsuitable for a society easily persuaded and self-destructive citizens.  However, there remain alliances between power centers in a democracy that serve to undermine their efficacy.When there are many, it is not a problem.  One neutralizes the other.  When there are only a few, military, government, industry, finance, information, as is now the case, there is a problem with these structures imposing disproportionate influence. When each acts individually, no problem exists.  When two or more act in concert, then ...

Democracy is inherently and fundamentally unstable.  It is a form of government that permits the promulgation of destabilizing forces.  For each of these forces, there must be a countervailing force to keep the motion on a true course.

These alliances can and do act as a pack of wild dogs, tearing at the flesh of America, each striving to promote their cause at the expense of everything else.  Each assumes the institution will remain in tact, but not cognizant of the fact that when too much flesh is torn away, the system changes.  Look at just a few...

• Military and Industry.  This was first warned against by President Dwight D. Eisenhower.  
• Political Parties and the Press.  Remarkably, this alliance has always been with us.  The ebbs and flows of the alliance has been present since the early days of our confederation. 
• Political parties and the Voters.  This is a relatively new aspect of democratic alliance in that the practitioners seem to be willing to demagogue their way to power through persuasion by emotion.
• Magistrates and the Church.  For millenia the alliance between magistrates and the church has been a fixture of the lives of many governments and the people.  That currently this may not seem the case does no diminish this sort of alliance - the one supporting the other. 
• The Government and its Citizens.  Any movement that persuades it citizens that it can provide all services needed is initially successful - in times of prosperity.   In other times, and they will certainly occur, the government must resort to alternative means to maintain order. 
• Unions.   Unions in counterpoint with  industry seems to work well.  Each demands more of the other.  But either of them separately or in alliance with government can be very much destabilizing for the entire country. 

According to Plato, democratic self-government does not work, according to Plato, because ordinary people have not learned how to run the ship of state. They are not familiar enough with such things as economics, military strategy, conditions in other countries, or the confusing intricacies of law and ethics.  See http://facultyfiles.frostburg.edu/phil/forum/PlatoRep.htm

This view suggests a naivety of the ordinary folks about how to operate a vast state.  Possibly correct unless the democratic leaders are well read and well experienced in philosophy, psychology, and administration.  This is particularly rare in our modern times.