Most of these countries have swayed back and forth between democracy and military rule. In societies with small middle classes, profound social inequalities, and often ethnic divisions as well, it is easy to imagine the reassertion of militarism under the guise of restoring order and security to a polarized society. It is clearly possible for even relatively poor nations to sustain democracy. India and Costa Rica offer two good examples of stable Third World democracies. In the long run, democratic societies have better human rights records than any known modern authoritarian regimes, suggesting that they are ultimately more stable.
Democracies do require greater investments in the common people than authoritarian societies.
Faith in institutions has to be built and maintained. More importantly, investment is required in just and fair processes that expand individual opportunities. That is the heart of the problem in Mexico, a democratizing society where national elites permitted local elites in states like Chiapas to continue to control regional political and economic processes. Democratization and the loosening of state control did not cause the peasant rebellion of 1994, or the tragic massacre of December 1997. The problem has been a shallow democratization that did not offer enough opportunities for peaceful participation, and did not build institutions to protect the rule of law and the victories of majorities, especially at the local level.