He do not offer a stable way to keep democratic country a democracy, but put too much faith in democratic tradition, and in people's imunity to extremist propaganda.
I would argue that it is rather the opposition which fails to give a scenario where a long running democracy falls out with exceptional conations such as depression.
Instead more example are quoted, however these do meet this criteria. The example of Lebanon, fails due to the democracy existing for less than a single generation. Hardly counting as a long-term democratic culture within the society.
The fall France’s third Republic and the setting up of the fascist Vichy state was due to the invasion of Nazi Germany and therefore is an exceptional circumstance, where the people did not vote in a far-right government, but rather forced upon them by a foreign power.
Furthermore, the fact the opposition admits that “ the Third Republic stumbled from crisis to crisis” would imply it is not a strong government whatsoever. Furthermore, the issue of rising right and left-wing groups within its borders as it can nether be proved they would disappear should they have been banned from the political process, and secondly due the 1920s and 30s being a radical time in politics. With the rise of the USSR Europe’s political scene changed drastically due to both support and fear of the Soviets. This political structure simply no longer exists, and with the strengthened position of states through inter-globalisation the likely hood of established democracies falling to un-democratic powers is extremely unlikely.
This situation also accounts for the fascist takeover of Italy in 1922. Which only succeeded due to the inaction of the military and the strength of Mussolini’s private army. However, in modern society, unlike the 1920s and 30s, it is impossible to believe that the military would allow a coup to take place by a fascist power, due to modern militaries becoming a tool of the democratic government, not as a self-interest group with its own agendas and hierarchy as existed in pre-1945 Europe. Likewise, modern democracies no longer allow political parties to establish private armed armies as was customary in many European countries during the inter-war period.
The situations simply no longer exist for an anti-democratic party to be voted into power and successfully destroy that democracy in a modern democratic system. Those only democracies at risk are those were the form of government is new, or currently under extreme amounts of strain on the political system and the populous.
History has shown us that people only have the ability to think freely and act freely in democracies.
If this is the case that Democracies cannot trust their citizens to make decisions, then what is the purpose of having a Democracy in the first place. This argument goings against the very nature of Democracy, which demands that the people dictate to the government what is good for the country, not the government dictate to the people what is good for them.