"Big question now, whether democracies are capable of long-term survival or not?"

Right. This question has troubled presumably many others and me for years and unfortunately, I am inclined to agree with your assessment (inasmuch as I have gained from my perception of how modern democracies have functioned—or should I say failed to function—in recent decades).

These matters are complex, so at the risk of misinterpretation through oversimplification I'll keep this to just a few general points (there are of course many more):

• Assuming that democracy represents the view of the majority of citizens then its actions ought to reflect the will of the majority of its citizens. Unfortunately, this is rarely if ever true as those who obtain power are usually in a privileged position (having access to electoral funds, easy access to media, etc.). Moreover, the question of their motives for seeking office also arises (even when ethical, pragmatism often rules the day thus ethics are compromised).

• Even when democracy is truly representative of the majority then two significant issues remain.
The first is that the wishes of the minority remain unfulfilled and the second is that no matter how hard a democracy tries, its ability to resolve problems at the level of individual citizens remains strictly limited. Therefore, democracy is a blunt instrument—that is, through practical necessity, it governs at a granularity above that of individual citizens and thus cannot satisfy the wishes of individual citizens in a fulfilling way. (Perhaps I should express that more in terms of the utilitarian concept of the greatest good for the greatest number (as per Priestley, Bentham, Mill etc.), but then that doesn't fully articulate what I mean (as I'll explain).

• Perhaps rather delving into political theory an example would provide the quickest explanation (I've used this case previously on HN to illustrate the point but it's only one of many, many similar instances). Take the issue of copyright law reform. Whilst concept of copyright has been around since the Statute of Anne in the early 18th Century, it didn't really come of age until the Berne International Copyright Convention of 1886 which came into being at the instigation of high-profile authors such as Victor Hugo. Significantly, the Convention provided for international recognition of copyright, more specifically its ability to be enforced across all signatory countries.

(Whilst the undisputed necessity of copyright law, both the 1886 Convention and essentially all copyright laws in all signatory countries since then have been made at the request of (mostly powerful) copyright holders—and not in the name of the great unwashed masses, in effect, they have been grossly underrepresented throughout the history of copyright law.)

Initially, copyright was essentially irrelevant to the average citizen, for even if an individual had wanted to violate copyright then he or she would not have had the practical—the extensive technical means to do so. However, some 80 or so years later in the 1960s that situation changed significantly with the development of the photocopiers and then again with the advent of digital technologies 20 or so years later. To cut it short, here are just a few of the many issues:

- As copyright was essentially irrelevant to the average citizen at the time of the Berne Convention, there was no effective opposition to the arguments put by the authors, they therefore won the day by default and as a consequence of their success (in gaining the international treaty) their newly-found status further entrenched their position as it effectively 'legitimized' their claims in full whether they were deserved or not, thus their view of copyright has overwhelmingly dominated the progression of copyright law ever since.

- Due to entrenched international law, reforming copyright law at a national level to benefit ordinary citizens has proved nigh on impossible. On the other hand, copyright owners have been spectacularly successful in further strengthening these laws to benefit themselves at the almost total exclusion of ordinary citizens.

- Here, one must question whether ordinary citizens have a legitimate moral case for copyright reform or not and on the balance of evidence, it is very hard to argue that they do not. Clearly, I cannot argue the case here other than to mention a few of the more notable issues. For instance, abuse of the fair use principle by rights holders; copyright law fails to take into account that rights holders were mainly educated at the public's expense and thus have some moral obligation to the public; the ever-increasing (and unreasonable) duration of copyright and the perpetuation of copyrights for orphan works with the principal aim of making them generally inaccessible (the purpose of eliminating public domain access to such works being deliberate in that if readily accessible and free then they would contribute additional competition to extant works, etc.—thus further strengthening rights holders' monopoly).

Obviously, the issue is that a privileged section of society has used both local law and international treaties (including WIPO etc.) to its enormous advantage and that it has done so in ways that democracies have been unable to resolve in any fair and equitable way (the fact is democracies simply do not have any effective wherewithal to do so).

The trouble is that the small but significant numbers of citizens who have been disenfranchised are well aware that their governments have failed them (a) in that they have not managed to achieve any reform, and (b), despite their just cause; they further realize the almost total futility of trying to fight for reform due to their small numbers, especially so in the light of entrenched, politically powerful, opposition.

What's at stake here is a more general issue, which is that democracies are essentially incapable of resolving legitimate issues for people who do not have sufficient numbers for them to be politically significant (although important, in the grand scheme of things, copyright is essentially a non-issue and the pragmatics of politics mean that it can be ignored—except for when the politically powerful are able to thrust it to the fore). Thus any such cause, whether legitimate of not, will languish especially so if its opponents come from a position of strength (which is often gained by virtue of their previous [institutional] success).

Now, multiply this disgruntlement and discontent across many other similar causes then we have a first-class recipe for weakening democracy—especially so in an era when such disparities become ever increasingly obvious due to improving communications.

Add to this the sudden rise of identity politics. Whether one considers its rise as beneficial or not is not the argument here, what is important is that it flies in the face of the more utilitarian/universal nature of democracy. Unlike causes such as copyright reform, identity politics has actually gathered considerable support due to society's increasing emphasis on a self-righteous individuality—in essence, the importance of one's subservience and acceptance of a common narrative for the greater good of everyone has diminished greatly in recent years. Thus, as far as democracy is concerned, the parable of The Man, the Boy and the Donkey seems more poignant than ever—that is whenever democracy 'tries to please all then it pleases none'.

Of course, there is much more to such discussion that cannot be covered here such the failure of both governments and capitalism to ensure reasonable equity for citizens including the ever-increasing disparity in wealth amongst citizens etc.

As you say there are alternatives but that none of them is likely to be attractive to the citizenry. I would also add that whilst any significant amount of discontent persists with any alternative model then it too would eventually fail.

Perhaps in some hypothetical world a benevolent dictator whose powers extended to the minutiae—that of resolving problems at the level of individuals—may work. But then, this isn't even a sensible notion whilst human beings continue to embrace notions of free will. Such concepts are a non sequitur.