Democracy is perhaps one of the most mischievous pranks ever pulled on the psyches of humanity in history. The concept SOUNDS good, giving the right to all people to decide the form of government they shall have, but democracy has been one of the most abused of terms in just about every language.
First of all, in any group of two or more, there will always be more opinions than mutual agreements, and to some folk, these opinions trump agreement every time. So democracy does not work with people who take it upon themselves to be disagreeable by nature. So how do we either exclude them, or minimize their negativity? Enter the draconian policies of Strongman Rule, in which the will of one or a very few is substituted for the consensus of the many, and the disagreeable people are systematically shut out or silenced, by whatever means deemed most practical and quickest. But what if the Strongman IS the disagreeable people, what recourse does the multitude have? That partly depends on what measures the Strongman has taken to prevent insurrections and potential threat to himself. If the Strongman has been lax, sometimes only the threat of rebellion is necessary, and he flees, leaving at least a temporary vacuum at the leadership post. But if the Strongman runs true to character, the only end game is somebody (or a lot of somebodies) to be carried out feet first or dead.
I rather suspect the second version is what this country is going to have to face within the next decade.
The stable nations within Islam have had to be ruled by brutal dictators, and with good reason.